DANIEL v. ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INTERNATIONAL INC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
TAMMY DANIEL, individually
Plaintiff,
v.
ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,1
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:25-cv-00112-TES
ORDER
On October 17, 2025, the Court afforded Plaintiff Tammy Daniel ten days to
show cause why her claims against Defendants Cerberus Capital Management, LP,
Promark Electronics, Inc., Jarred Knecht, Brandon Knecht, Peter Knecht, Peter
Johansson, and Charles Gilstrap (collectively “Defendants”) should not be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See [Doc. 21].
Plaintiff responded to the Court’s show cause order [Doc. 21] on October 27,
2025. See [Doc. 22]. In her response, Plaintiff claimed that service was effectuated on
multiple defendants but failed to provide adequate proof that each defendant had
actually been served. [Id. at p. 2]. On November 11, 2025, the Court held a hearing to
gather more information about Plaintiff’s alleged service attempts.
1 On October 17, 2025, the Court granted Defendant Electrical Components International, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss, thus removing them as a party to this action.
Case 3:25-cv-00112-TES Document 29 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 2

2
At the November 11 hearing, it became clear that Plaintiff had not, in fact, served
any of the defendants with the sole exception of Defendant Electrical Components
International, Inc. (“ECI”). ECI, however, was dismissed from the case on October 17,
2025. See [Doc. 20]. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to
serve each defendant with a copy of both the summons and the complaint unless the
defendant waives service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), (d). Rule 4(m) requires a plaintiff to
serve those copies upon a defendant within 90 days after the filing of the complaint.
Thus, Plaintiff’s deadline for serving Defendants with a copy of the summons and
complaint passed on October 14, 2025.2
Given Plaintiff’s failure to serve the remaining Defendants within the time
affixed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court now DISMISSES Plaintiff’s
claims asserted against Defendants without prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk of
Court to enter judgment closing this case.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of November, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 Where a Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the ninety-day time
period provided for in Rule 4(m) does not begin anew, unless the amended pleading adds a new
defendant not previously named in the original complaint. Haygood v. Orange Cnty. Pub. Sch., No.
616CV2105ORL37GJK, 2017 WL 4242035 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2017). Plaintiff added no new defendants in
her Amended Complaint, thus her deadline to serve remains the same.
Case 3:25-cv-00112-TES Document 29 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 2