Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01621/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01621-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darren Hamilton, Sr.

Plaintiff, 

v.

Hadley Auto Transport, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1621-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Darren Hamilton, Sr.’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion to

Reconsider Order of Dismissal of Un-Served Defendant Parties” (Dkt. 14). Plaintiff filed

his Complaint on August 23, 2007. (See Dkt. 1, Compl.) Defendants Performance

Transportation Services, Inc. and Hadley Auto Transport filed Answers on October 9,

2007. (Dkts. 5, 6.) No other defendants were served within the 120-day period required

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). On January 7, 2008, Plaintiff was notified that

a status conference was scheduled for May 12, 2008. The status conference was held as

scheduled, and Plaintiff failed to appear. (See Dkt. 12, Minute Entry dated May 12,

2008.) The Court dismissed all non-served Defendants and scheduled a Show Cause

Hearing for May 28, 2008 at which Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the case should

not be dismissed because jurisdiction of these proceedings have been transferred to the

Bankruptcy Court. (Dkt. 13, Order dated May 13, 2008.)

Case 2:07-cv-01621-SMM Document 15 Filed 05/22/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Having failed to appear at the status conference, Plaintiff now requests that the

Court reconsider its Order dismissing all non-served defendants. The Court declines

Plaintiff’s request. Although Plaintiff asserts that he was misled by his document

preparer and process server, ultimate responsibility for providing service of process rested

with Plaintiff. The Court will not reconsider its Order where, as here, nearly eight months

passed without service of process and Plaintiff failed to appear at a status conference. 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957), on which Plaintiff relies, addresses the relaxed

requirements of notice pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not the

requirements of service of process, and is therefore inapposite.

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. The Court will determine after the Show Cause

Hearing whether this matter should be dismissed on account of the transfer to Bankruptcy

Court. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider Order of

Dismissal of Un-Served Defendant Parties” (Dkt. 14).

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01621-SMM Document 15 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 2