UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHESTER BODMAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:14-cv-14420 

v. District Judge David M. Lawson 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

ARAMARK CORPORATION, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANT ARAMARK CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS (DE 23) IN ABEYANCE PENDING ITS RESPONSE 

TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (DE 22) 

Defendant Aramark Corporation (“Aramark”) has failed to timely answer or 

otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. In addition, Aramark has failed to 

respond to the Court’s April 9, 2015 order to show cause. For the reasons that 

follow, the Court will hold Aramark’s motion to dismiss in abeyance, pending its 

response to the Court’s order to show cause. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On December 22, 2014, a waiver of service upon Aramark was returned 

executed, making its answer due on or before January 30, 2015. (DE 9.) On the 

same day, Mark E. Shreve entered his appearance on behalf of Aramark. (DE 8.) 

2:14-cv-14420-DML-APP Doc # 24 Filed 04/28/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 254
2 

Aramark then failed to timely file an answer or other response to Plaintiff’s 

complaint. In addition, Aramark did not seek an extension of time in which to file 

its answer or other response. 

On April 9, 2015, the Undersigned entered an order requiring Aramark to 

show cause for its failure to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

(DE 22.) The order required Aramark to show cause, in writing, on or before April 

23, 2015, why the Court should not make an entry of default against it. The Court 

cautioned Aramark that failure to timely respond to the show cause order would 

result in the Court directing the clerk to make an entry of default pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. 

On April 17, 2015, Aramark filed a motion to dismiss. (DE 23.) In its 

motion, Aramark did not address the Court’s order to show cause. Nor did it move 

for an extension of time in which to file such a motion. As of the date of this 

order, Aramark has not filed any further documents relating to its out-of-time 

motion or the Court’s show cause order. 

II. ANALYSIS 

Rule 12(a) provides that a defendant must file a response to a complaint 

“within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint” or, where 

service has been timely waived, within 60 days after the request for a waiver was 

2:14-cv-14420-DML-APP Doc # 24 Filed 04/28/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 255
3 

sent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Pursuant to Rule 6(b), the court may, “for good 

cause, extend the time” in which an act may be done as follows: 

(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request 

is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or 

(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to 

act because of excusable neglect. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) & (B). 

Here, the waiver was sent on December 1, 2014, making Aramark’s 

response due on or before January 30, 2015. (DE 9.) Aramark did not file an 

answer or other response, or move for an extension of time prior to that date. 

Accordingly, the Court may only grant Aramark an extension of time in which to 

file its response to Plaintiff’s complaint on motion upon a finding of excusable 

neglect.1

 

The Court therefore must address two issues related to Aramark. First, 

Aramark has thus far failed to respond to the Court’s April 9, 2015 show cause 

order. Filing an out of time motion to dismiss, without seeking leave or even 

mentioning the show cause order, is not a sufficient response. Accordingly, 

Aramark is ORDERED to respond, in writing, to the Court’s April 9, 2015 order 

to show cause ON OR BEFORE MAY 5, 2015. In the event that Aramark again 

                                                            

1

 This analysis presumes that an entry of default will not be made. Pursuant to 

Rule 55(c), the Court may set aside an entry of default “for good cause.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 55(c). In any event, Defendant has not made, or attempted to make, either 

a showing of good cause or excusable neglect. 

2:14-cv-14420-DML-APP Doc # 24 Filed 04/28/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 256
4 

fails to respond to this order, the Court will direct that the clerk make an entry of 

default. Following the entry of default, Plaintiff will be entitled to move for 

default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2). 

Second, Aramark’s pending motion to dismiss was filed out of time and 

Aramark has failed to seek leave for such a late filing. If Aramark would like the 

Court to consider its pending motion to dismiss, it must move for leave to file out 

of time pursuant to Rule 6(b). When the Court receives Aramark’s response to the 

show cause order and any related motion for leave to file out of time, it will 

consider whether the motion to dismiss should be considered or stricken. If the 

Court determines that the motion to dismiss will be considered, it will issue a 

scheduling order for Plaintiff’s response at that time. The Court will therefore hold 

Aramark’s motion to dismiss IN ABEYANCE until such a determination has been 

made. (DE 23.) 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 28, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:14-cv-14420-DML-APP Doc # 24 Filed 04/28/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 257
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on April 28, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

(313) 234-5200 

2:14-cv-14420-DML-APP Doc # 24 Filed 04/28/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 258