Cadence Bank v. Beauty Revolution and Co LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CADENCE BANK,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-512
BEAUTY REVOLUTION AND CO
LLC, FERNANDO SERRANO
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 20, 2026, this Court canceled an initial scheduling conference
and ordered Plaintiff to properly serve Defendants within thirty days of the
Order of Non-Compliance (ECF No. 10). 	See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) (requiring
defendant(s) to be served within 90 days after the filing of the complaint). The
Court 	advised 	Plaintiff 	that 	failure 	to 	comply 	would 	result 	in 	a
recommendation that the case be dismissed. (ECF No. 10 at 1).
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order. 	Rule 4(m) provides,
“[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 without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time.” This mandates dismissal absent good cause shown by
Plaintiff for the failure to timely serve. Lewis v. Sec’y of Pub. Safety and Corrs.,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00512 Document 12 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
870 F.3d 365, 369 (5th Cir. 2017). Here, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for
its failure to serve Defendants as required by Rule 4(m). 	Dismissal without
prejudice is now appropriate, which means Plaintiff may refile and prosecute
its action in conformance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if that is
its desire.
Further, 	by 	failing 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	Court 	order, 	Plaintiff 	has
prevented this action from proceeding. The Court should therefore exercise its
inherent power to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and
sua sponte dismiss this action without prejudice. See Coe v. United States, No.
3:23-cv-1627, 2023 WL 9231455, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2023), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:23-cv-1627, 2024 WL 150441 (N.D. Tex. Jan.
12, 2024) (“Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure
to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order.”).
Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order and failure to show
good cause for its failure to serve Defendants as required by Rule 4(m), the
Court recommends the case be dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
Case 4:26-cv-00512 Document 12 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on June 24, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00512 Document 12 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3