Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re: Court of the Romford County Court of Great Britain Dated

November 9, 2011

IN RE: COURT OF THE ROMFORD COUNTY COURT OF GREAT BRITAIN DATED MAY 21, 2009 APPLICANT.


ORDER

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: [FOURTH AMENDED] RENEWAL OF AMENDED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LEGAL AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 3.01(a) ON THE REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM SUNTRUST (Doc. No. 11)

FILED: July 25, 2011

THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED and the case be dismissed for failure to comply with the orders of the Court.

The factual background of this case has been thoroughly discussed in five prior orders from this Court (Doc. Nos. 2-3, 8, 12, 14), and is incorporated herein by reference. On August 12, 2011, Applicant filed another Renewal of Amended Motion and Memorandum of Legal Authority Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(a) on the Request for Documents from Suntrust (the "Fourth Amended Motion"). Doc. No. 11. The Fourth Amended Motion is identical to the Third Amended Motion, except that the bank account numbers are no longer redacted and Applicant has attached a proposed order. See Doc. Nos. 11, 11-1. On September 19, 2011, the Court entered an order directing Applicant "to properly serve Suntrust (see n. 1) with a copy of the Fourth Amended Motion (Doc. No. 11) and a copy of this order, and file a return of service within twenty-one (21) days." Doc. No. 12 at 6 (emphasis in original).

On September 30, 2011, Applicant filed an executed return of service stating that Suntrust was served on September 22, 2011, by serving Nilsa Hernandez "as Administrative Assistant." Doc. No. 13-1. Applicant's return of service again failed to comply with Rules 4(h)(1) and 4(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Section 48.01, Florida Statutes. The return of service also failed to comply with the Court's September 19, 2011 order, which directed Applicant to properly serve Suntrust within twenty-one days and explained how service must be perfected. See Doc. No. 12. Accordingly, on October 19, 2011, the Court entered an order directing Applicant to within fourteen (14) days properly serve Suntrust and file an executed return of service; and show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's order at Docket Entry No. 12. Doc. No. 14 at 6. To date, Applicant has not filed an executed return of service or filed a response to the order to show cause.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is recommended that the Fourth Motion (Doc. No. 11) be DENIED, the case be DISMISSED for failure to comply with the orders (Doc. Nos. 12, 14) of the Court and for failing to properly serve Suntrust in the time provided, and the Clerk be directed to close the case.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report within fourteen (14) days from the date of this report and recommendation shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal.

Copies furnished to: Presiding District Judge Counsel of Record

20111109

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.