-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KHETAM NIMER, an individual, 

and MONA HAMED, an individual, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 14-13689 

v. 

 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

ADAM TOURS OF NEW YORK, INC., 

a corporation, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REISSUE 

SUMMONS AND EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE (Doc. 28) 

 Plaintiffs filed this action in 2014. When Defendant did not respond to 

the complaint, Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment on June 3, 2015. 

Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, which was 

granted on February 8, 2019. The court set aside the default judgment 

because Defendant was not properly served with the summons and 

complaint. 

 On July 16, 2019, the court issued an order to show cause directing 

Plaintiffs to explain why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiffs responded to the show cause order 
 

-2- 

and filed a motion to reissue the summons. Defendant has not filed a 

response. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: 

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 

complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action 

without prejudice against that defendant or order that 

service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff 

shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend 

the time for service for an appropriate period. 

Id. (emphasis added). The Advisory Committee notes provide that this 

section “authorizes the court to relieve a plaintiff of the consequences of an 

application of this subdivision even if there is no good cause shown.” Id.

(Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment). See also Slenzka v. 

Landstar Ranger, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 322, 325-26 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (“[G]ood 

cause no longer stands as an absolute prerequisite to extending the time 

for obtaining proper service of process.”) (citing cases). 

 Plaintiffs do not argue that good cause exists for extending the 

summons, but that the court should exercise its discretion to do so. 

Plaintiffs contend that if the complaint is dismissed, their causes of action 

may be time barred. See M.C.L. §§ 600.5805, 600.5813; M.C.L. § 

445.911(7); Slenzka, 204 F.R.D. at 326 (“Because Plaintiffs’ suit will be 

time-barred if refiled, an extension of time to effect service of process is 
 

-3- 

clearly contemplated by Rule 4(m).”) Plaintiffs also argue that an extension 

would serve the “overall policy in this Circuit of resolving disputes on their 

merits, rather than disposing of them on procedural or technical grounds.” 

Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiffs also point out that Defendant has actual 

notice of this action. 

 The court agrees that these factors weigh in favor of extending the 

time to serve the summons and complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall 

have until October 11, 2019 to serve the summons and complaint on 

Defendant. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order to show cause 

(Doc. 26) is satisfied. 

Dated: August 28, 2019 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

 GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

August 28, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Marcia Beauchemin 

Deputy Clerk