Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PETER KINDER, )
MISSOURI LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 1:10 CV 101 RWS
)
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, )
SECRETARY OF TREASURY, et al., )
Defendants. )
ORDER
[#22] asking me to order the United States Defendants to file an answer in this case. In
their motion, Plaintiffs suggested that more than two months had passed since Plaintiffs
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [#23] arguing Plaintiffs failed to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(A)(I), which requires service to be made upon the
United States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought.
On November 15, 2010 I issued a Show Cause Order [#24] to Plaintiffs to show that
service had been made upon the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri.
On November 17, 2010 Plaintiffs filed a Response to my Order to Show Cause [#28] and
Notice of Filing Proof of Service [#27]. The Proof of Service filed by Plaintiffs indicates
that service was not made upon the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Missouri until after my Show Cause Order. The Plaintiffs’ response indicates that the
Case 1:10-cv-00101-RWS Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 2 of 3
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri was not served until November
16, 2010.
Plaintiffs are now asking me to liberally construe the service requirements of Rule 4
and conclude that the United States Defendants had actual knowledge of this case as
evidenced by the United States Defendants Motion in Opposition and, as a result, order the
United States Defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint. Of course, Plaintiffs are
also asking me to ignore or liberally construe Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2),
which gives the United States sixty days to file an answer after service. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(a)(2) (“A United States officer...sued in an official capacity must serve an answer to a
complaint...within 60 days after service on the United States attorney.”) (emphasis added).
Because service was not made upon the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Missouri until November 16, 2010, Defendants’ Answer is not untimely as argued by
Plaintiffs do not cite any legal authority that would permit me to disregard the
express requirements of Rule 12(a)(2) and shorten the amount of time the United States
Defendants have to file an answer once the United States Attorney has been served. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a framework for the fair and orderly adjudication
of a case, and I cannot ignore them simply because Plaintiffs ask me to do so. As with any
motion, such a request must be supported by relevant legal authority and facts. Because
neither has been provided by Plaintiffs to date, the motion will be denied without prejudice
-2-
Case 1:10-cv-00101-RWS Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 3 of 3
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-