Rocketlady Unlimited Enterprises, LLC. v. Reliant Retail Energy, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROCKETLADY UNLIMITED
ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RELIANT RETAIL ENERGY, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-04903
Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Rocketlady Unlimited Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Our
Hearts Together, LLC ("Plaintiff') Motion for Relief (Doc. No. 8) and Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 9). The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4 and hereby DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff,pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants
Reliant Retail Energy, LLC, Sunrun Gemini Manager, Goodleap, Assurant, TMobile, ATT,
Xfinitity, BSG, Mike Calvert Toyota, and Tejas Toyota (collectively, "Defendants"). (Doc. No. 1).
On December 13, 2024, the Court notified Plaintiff that the summons were not complete due to
procedural deficiencies. On April 3, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho entered an
Order of Non-Compliance that rescheduled the initial scheduling conference because "[p]roof of
timely service of the Defendants has not been filed with the Court." (Doc. No. 6). The Order further
stated that "[i]fproof of service is not filed by May 30, 2025, this case may be dismissed." (Id.).
On June 25, 2025, Magistrate Judge Ho issued a Second Order of Non-Compliance. (Doc.
No. 7). This Order stated that "[t]here is still no proof that Defendants were served." (Id.).
Nevertheless, the Court stated that it "will grant Plaintiff another chance to ensure that Defendants
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04903 Document 11 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

are properly served and submit valid proof of service." (Id.). Soon thereafter, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Relief (Doc. No. 8) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 9). Neither of these
pending motions addressed the outstanding service deficiencies.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that "[i]f a defendant is not served within 90
days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-
must dismiss the action with prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within
a specified time." Plaintiff filed this lawsuit over one year ago, and this Court has twice informed
Plaintiff of the service deficiencies and possibility of dismissal. To date, Plaintiff has not served
any of the Defendants. Therefore, this Court hereby DISMISSES this case without prejudice. All
pending motions are denied as moot.
It is so ordered.
t_
Signed on this the X 	day of March 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
2
Case 4:24-cv-04903 Document 11 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2