Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-324 - Duru v. Berkshire Hathaway Home Services et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-324 - Duru v. Berkshire Hathaway Home Services et al
July 13, 2015
PDF | More
Findings and Recommendations on Case: The Court should deny Plaintiff's 20 MOTION for Oral Argument, grant the Moving Defendants' 15 MOTION to Dismiss without prejudice, and re-advise Plaintiff that if proper service is not made within 120 days after the filing fee was paid which is August 7, 2015 this case is subject to dismissal without prejudice unless she can show good cause for the failure to timely and properly effect service and for the Court to extend the time for service for an appropriate period. (See order for specifics) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L Horan on 7/13/2015) (mcrd)
August 6, 2015
PDF | More
Order Accepting in part and Rejecting in part 26 Findings and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Oral Argument, grants the 15 Motion to Dismiss Claims Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Defendants HSGA Real Estate LLC, Karen Lee, David Lee, Joanie Cullity, Holly Leggett, and Pam Wetzel. The court rejects the portion of the Report recommending that the court re-advise Plaintiff on the amount of time in which she has to accomplish service on the parties. This is so because the court cannot dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) until after the 120 days has expired and after it has given notice to Plaintiff of her failure to effect service, as required by Rule 4(m). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 8/6/2015) (axm)
November 25, 2015
PDF | More
Findings and Recommendations on Motion: The Court should grant 41 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, and Duru's claims against Kaiser should be dismissed w/out prejudice to her right to renew her claims against Kaiser in a jurisdiction where personal jurisdiction over Kaiser could be obtained. Further, to the extent that any claim against any defendant has not beendismissed, the Court should dismiss this action w/out prejudice pursuant to FRCP 4(m) for Duru's failure to timely effectuate service. Kaiser's 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim should be denied as moot. (See order for specifics) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L Horan on 11/25/2015) (mcrd)
January 20, 2016
PDF | More
Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations re: 44 Findings and Recommendations, granting 41 Motion to Dismiss filed by Kaiser Permanente Georgia, denying as moot Motion re: 36 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 1/20/2016) (mem)