Mak v. Dunham et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PAUL T. MAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
THEODORE R. DUNHAM JR.,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-24-248-SLP
O R D E R
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Paul T. Mak’s Response to Order to Show Cause
[Doc. No. 55]. On January 7, 2026, the Court issued an Order [Doc. No. 52] directing
Plaintiff to show cause why the claims against Defendants Arc, Inc. and Liam McCarthy
should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within ninety days from
filing of the Amended Complaint. In his Response, Plaintiff represents that he was unable
to serve Arc, Inc. nor Liam McCarthy as of January 21, 2026. Because Defendants Arc,
Inc. and Liam McCarthy were not served within 90 days of the filing of Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, the claims against those particular Defendants must be dismissed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served
within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant.”). Furthermore, Plaintiff has also not requested an
extension of time to serve the referenced Defendants nor demonstrated good cause for the
1 As noted by Plaintiff, the Court permitted extensions to serve the John Doe Defendants, now
identified as Defendants Arc., Inc. and Liam McCarthy, on multiple occasions. See [Doc. Nos. 30
and 37]. Defendants Arc., Inc. and Liam McCarthy were named for the first time as Defendants
in the Amended Complaint. See [Doc. No. 39].
Case 5:24-cv-00248-SLP Document 58 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 2

Court to extend the time to serve Defendants Arc., Inc. and Liam McCarthy. See id.;
Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Arc, Inc.
and Liam McCarthy are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-00248-SLP Document 58 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 2