|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN
DIVISION
| THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED |
| PARTNERSHIP, |
| |
| Plaintiff, | |
| |
| | Civil Action No. 01-72987 |
| v. |
| | Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff |
| WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, |
 |
Magistrate Judge Komives |
| |
| Defendants. | |
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS' EXPEDITED MOTION
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
On August 7, 2001, Plaintiff entered a Complaint against Defendants in this Court. As Plaintiff
has stated several times in documents relating to this case (for example, see Exhibit A, Plaintiff's
letter to Defendants of September 5, 2001), Plaintiff claims to have effected a waiver of service
via telephone. Plaintiff has not effected (and has made no effort to effect) waiver of service in
writing, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
The notice and request
(A) shall be in writing and shall be addressed directly to the defendant, if an individual, or
else to an officer or managing or general agent (or other agent authorized by appointment or law to
receive service of process) of a defendant subject to service under subdivision (h); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(d)(2)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also require Plaintiff to properly notify Defendants "of the
consequences of compliance and of a failure to comply with the request":
[The notice and request]
(D) shall inform the defendant, by means of a text prescribed in an official form promulgated
pursuant to Rule 84, of the consequences of compliance and of a failure to comply with the request;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)
Plaintiff failed to inform Defendant of said consequences in writing either by means of the
specifically prescribed form or by any other written means.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also require that Plaintiff allow Defendant at least 30 days
to return the waiver:
[The notice and request]
(F) shall allow the defendant a reasonable time to return the waiver, which shall be at least 30
days from the date on which the request is sent... Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)
However, in direct opposition to the intent of this Rule, Plaintiff pressured Defendants to agree
to waive service by telephone, informing Defendants that failure to agree would result in Defendants
having to bear the cost of process service. The Rule clearly is designed to allow Defendants to make
a reasoned and unhurried decision; however, Plaintiff coerced Defendants into an immediate verbal
agreement, without allowing Defendants the "reasonable time" to which Defendants are entitled.
By its own admission (Exhibit A), Plaintiff has not followed anything resembling the procedure
demanded by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It therefore follows that proper service of the
Complaint has never been effected, which means that no proper Complaint is before the Court at this
time.
In light of these facts, Defendants respectfully urge the Court to dismiss the Complaint and to
vacate the Preliminary Injunction that the Court has imposed upon Defendants.
Respectfully submitted,
Henry Mishkoff
WebFeats
2661 Midway Road, #224-225
Carrollton, TX 75006
972.931.5421
Defendants (pro se)
Dated: November 15, 2001
| 