Baptiste v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ANDREA BAPTISTE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-4725 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT SECTION: “P” (4) LLOYD’S LONDON ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is the “Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(5) for Insufficient Service of Process”1 filed by Defendant, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. The motion was set for submission on June 26, 2024.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, making the deadline in this instance June 18, 2024. Plaintiff Amber Wilson, who is represented by counsel, did not file an opposition to the motion. Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit,3 1 R. Doc. 21. 2 R. Doc. 21-3. 3 This action was originally filed on August 28, 2023, by then-Plaintiff Andrea Baptiste. R. Doc. 1. On December 22, 2023, Amber Wilson was substituted as Plaintiff in place of Andrea Baptiste. R. Doc. 13. On April 24, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. R. Doc. 19. The Order explained that this case was filed in August of 2023 and that there was no evidence that service of the complaint had been made upon Defendant. Id. The Court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which states that if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order that service be made within a specific time. Under Rule 4(m), if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the Court must extend the time to serve for an appropriate period. Accordingly, the Court ordered that on or before May 23, 2024, Plaintiff had to file into the record proof of service or show good cause, in writing, why service of process has not been effected on Defendant. Id. On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed into the record proof of service, reflecting that Defendant was served on April 8, 2024. R. Doc. 20. Plaintiff made no effort to show good cause for the failure to timely serve Defendant. See id. On June 4, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss. R. Doc. 21. Defendant seeks dismissal on the basis that Plaintiff’s service of process was insufficient because Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant until 224 days after Plaintiff filed her Complaint. Id. Plaintiff did not oppose or otherwise respond to Defendant’s motion. As such, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for her delay or provide any basis why the Court should exercise its discretion in extending Plaintiff’s time for service. The Court therefore finds Defendant’s motion should be granted. See Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 2013) (“When service of process is challenged, the serving party bears the burden of proving . . . good cause for failure to effect timely service.”). IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of August 2024. DARREL JAMES PAPILLION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE