Duve v. Forrest et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE,
Plaintiff.
V.
WILLIAM CHARLES FOREST, et
al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00158
OPINION AND ORDER
This case has been referred to me for all pretrial purposes. See Dkt. 16. On
May 28, 2026, Shonda Hortness, a named-but-as-yet-unserved defendant, filed
two motions: (1) Motion to Inspect and Obtain Copies of Exhibits (Dkt. 21) and
(2) Combined 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss, 	Motion 	to 	Quash/Challenge 	Service, 	and
Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement (Dkt. 22). I strike both motions as
procedurally deficient.
The Local Rules require all papers to “have at the end a certificate reflecting
how and when service has been made or why service is not required.” S.D. Tex.
L.R. 5.3 (emphasis added) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)). The certificate of service
appended to Hortness’s first motion states: “I certify that a true and correct copy
of this Motion was served on all parties or counsel of record in accordance with the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 28 day of May 2026.” Dkt. 21 at 2. Similarly,
the certificate of service appended to Hortness’s second motion states: “I certify
that a true and correct copy of this Motion was served on Plaintiff in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this 28 day of May 2026.” Dkt. 22 at
3. This is insufficient. Hortness must specify how she served Plaintiff. Was it by
mail? Personal delivery? Leaving it at Plaintiff’s office or usual place of abode? I
will not assume that service has been completed without this information.
Accordingly, I strike Hortness’s motions for failure to comply with the Local Rules.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 23 Filed 05/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Before filing her motions again, Hortness should consider whether it is
necessary to file any motions at this time. Hortness fails to specify how she learned
of this litigation, but it is impossible that Hortness or any other defendant has been
served with a summons in this matter because the Clerk has yet to issue a summons
for any defendant. I have given Plaintiff until August 19, 2026, to serve each
defendant with summons and her complaint as required by Rule 4. See Dkt. 19.
Because the Clerk has yet to issue summonses, and because the time has not
expired for Plaintiff to serve the defendants, it would be premature for me to
consider whether Hortness has received sufficient service of process. If Hortness
is not properly served with a summons and complaint by August 19, 2026,
Plaintiff’s claims against Hortness will be dismissed.
This court will not entertain premature motion practice from unserved
defendants. Unless and until Hortness is served with a summons and complaint,
there is no service-of-process dispute for this court to resolve. Thus, Hortness need
not, and should not, burden this court with motion practice unless and until she is
served with a summons and complaint.
SIGNED this 	day of May 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 23 Filed 05/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2