Wright v. Inframark, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STACIE WRIGHT, 	§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
V.
INFRAMARK, LLC,
Defendant.
§ 	Civil Action No. H-25-5745
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Inframark LLC' s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs 	Complaint 	Pursuant 	to 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	12(b)( 5)
(Document No. 13). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law,
the Court determines that the motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This is an employment dispute. On December 1, 2025, prose Plaintiff Stacie
Wright ("Wright") filed suit against her former employer, Defendant Inframark,
LLC ("Inframark") a water management company based in Harris County, Texas.
Wright alleges that she disclosed her disability of dyslexia to Inframark in 2024 and
was 	later retaliated against by Inframark by being placed on 	a performance
improvement plan. 1 Wright further alleges that she "was forced to sign a demotfon
1 See Pro Se Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05745 Document 16 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

•• under threat of termination. " 2 Wright contends that she "resigned on September 26,
2024, due to hostile and retaliatory conditions." 3 The Court construes all pro se
filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Based on the 	foregoing, 	Wright brings 	suit under the 	American with
Disabilities Act of 1990, alleging that she was retaliated against and subject to hostile
work conditions. 	On March 25, 	2026, Inframark moved to 	dismiss 	Wright's
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). 4 Wright did not
respond to the pending motion to dismiss within either the original response date
required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the date of this Order.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(5) vests courts with "broad discretion to dismiss an action for
ineffective service of process." Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C. V., 22 F.3d
634, 645 (5th Cir. 1994). If a defendant is not served within ninety days after the
complaint is filed, the Court must: (1) dismiss the action without prejudice; or (2)
order service be made within a specified time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Fifth
Circuit has made clear that "[w]hen service of pro~ess is challenged, the serving
4 See Defendant Inframark LLC 's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant
to Federal Rule a/Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), Document No. 13 at 1-5.
2
Case 4:25-cv-05745 Document 16 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

party bears the burden of proving its validity or good cause for failure to effect timely
service." Sys. Sign Supplies v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir.
1990).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Inframark moves to dismiss Wright's complaint, contending that Wright
failed to serve Inframark with a copy of the operative Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(l). Wright did not respond to the pending motion to
dismiss, failing to rebut or offer evidence to counter any oflnframark's contentions.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, failure to respond is taken as a representation of no
opposition. See S.D. Tex. Local R. 7.4. Regardless of Wright's failure to respond to
the pending motion to dismiss, the Court will consider the merits of Inframark' s
arguments.
Inframark notes for the Court the summons prepared by Wright in this matter
that was delivered to the U.S. Marshals Service to be served based on Wright's status
as an in forma pauperis litigant. 5 Inframark contends that the summons was served
upon "William Miller, who is designated by law to accept service of process on
behalf of CT Corp." 6 Inframark contends that the service of process in this matter is
5 See Court Order Granting In Forma Pauperis, Document No. 8 at 1.
6 Defendant Inframark LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), Document No. 13, Exhibit A at 1 (Wright's
Service of Process Receipt).
3
Case 4:25-cv-05745 Document 16 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

invalid because neither William Miller or CT Corporation is the registered agent for
Inframark. Inframark further contends that Wright holds the burden to show the
Court that service was properly effectuated and has "done nothing to locate the
correct service address or registered agent." 7 Wright offers no rebuttal.
The Court has reviewed the record in this matter and notes that the 90-day
deadline for Wright to effectuate proper service is March 1, 2026, more than a month
before the date of this Order. Based on the foregoing and having considered the
pending motion, submissions, and applicable law in this case, the Court finds that
Wright's service of process was ineffective, and her claims against Inframark should
be dismissed without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant Inframark LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) (Document No. 13)
is GRANTED: The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff Stacie Wright's claims against Defendant Inframark,
LLC are DISMISSED.
7 Defendant Jnframark LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), Document No. 13 at 2.
4
Case 4:25-cv-05745 Document 16 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 	_~Oday of April, 2026.
5
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05745 Document 16 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5