Cohn v. Small Investments Limited Limited et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Mark Cohn,
Plaintiff,
v.
Small Investments Limited Limited, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-03581-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Mark Cohn filed his complaint on September 30, 2025. (Doc. 1.) On
October 1, 2025, the court issued an order stating any unserved defendant would be
terminated on January 2, 2026. (Doc. 6.) As of February 4, 2026, there was no evidence of
service on any defendant, the defendants were terminated, and the case was closed. (Doc.
7.) At the time the court entered that order, it was unaware that on February 3, 2026, Cohn
had submitted a document purporting to provide proof of service. (Doc. 8.) That proof of
service was filed on February 5, 2026.
Cohn’s proof of service stated Cohn’s office is located in Chandler, Arizona but
from his “place of business at Mill Valley, California” he sent the summons and complaint
to defendant Small Investments Limited in Ireland. (Doc. 8.) The proof of service did not
indicate if the mailing was delivered nor did it provide any information regarding service
on defendant Faith Clarke.
Upon reviewing the alleged proof of service, the court determined it was not
necessary to reinstate the case. Rule 4(c)(2) does not allow for service by a party, meaning
Case 2:25-cv-03581-KML Document 11 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the service attempted by Cohn was impermissible. See Constien v. United States, 628 F.3d
1207, 1217 (10th Cir. 2010) (service improper because mailings were done by plaintiff
herself, “not by a nonparty, as required by Rule 4(c)”). In addition, the proof of service
provided no supporting evidence of the mailing, nor did it state if the mail was delivered.
Despite the case being closed on February 4, 2026, Cohn took no additional action
until April 14, 2026, when he filed a motion for entry of default. (Doc. 9.) That motion
claims service was proper and Small Investments Limited has failed to respond. But service
was not proper, and the case has already been terminated. The motion for entry of default
is denied.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Default (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
Dated this 15th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03581-KML Document 11 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 2