Lahmann v. Barclays Bank Delaware
- Leo Brisbois
- 0:24-cv-04289
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Lahmann v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Judge Brisbois recommended dismissing claims against Experian without prejudice because Lahmann did not show service or prosecute.
The recommendation affects Aaron Lahmann’s action against Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; it does not state a disposition of the claims against the other defendants.
What happened
In Lahmann v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Aaron Lahmann had not provided proof that he served Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., more than 90 days after the case was removed to federal court.
The court had ordered Lahmann to provide proof of service or show good cause for more time. Lahmann did neither and did not communicate with the court after that order.
Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended dismissing the action against Experian without prejudice for failure to follow the court’s order, lack of prosecution, and failure to properly serve Experian. The recommendation was not a final order, and the parties could object within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Lahmann v. Barclays Bank Delaware · No. 0:24-cv-04289
- Leo Brisbois
- May 14, 2025
Background
This Report and Recommendation concerns the claims against Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. More than 90 days after the action was removed to federal court, Aaron Lahmann had not provided proof that he served Experian with a summons and a copy of the complaint.
On March 12, 2025, the court notified Lahmann that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The court directed him to provide proof of service or demonstrate good cause for an extension of time. The court warned that failure to comply could lead to a recommendation that the action against Experian be dismissed for failure to properly serve Experian and failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Analysis
The deadline for Lahmann to provide proof of service or show good cause for an extension expired. He did not provide proof of service, explain why he needed more time, or communicate with the court after the March 12 order. The court therefore found that he failed to comply with that order and offered no explanation for doing so.
Recommendation and Notice
Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the action against Experian be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the March 12 order, lack of prosecution, and failure to effect proper service. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation did not bar a future filing based on the same matter, although the opinion does not address any requirements for such a filing.
The document states that it is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. A party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation, and a response to objections may be filed within 14 days after service of the objections.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.