Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Brooks v. Davol, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD,

INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA

MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY

LITIGATION

This document relates to:

Brooks v. Davol, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-3992 Case No. 2:18-md-2846

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has not responded.

"If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Case Management Order 9 sets out an email service procedure as an alternative to formal service. (CMO 9, MDL 2846, ECF No. 61, PageID 978.) If a plaintiff follows the procedure in CMO 9, Defendants agree to waive formal service of process. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed this case on November 14, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants moved to dismiss for inadequate service on October 17, 2024. (ECF No. 3.) This Court denied Defendants' motion without prejudice because, though Defendants asserted that Plaintiff did not follow the email service procedure under CMO 9, they did not state whether Plaintiff failed to serve the Complaint by any proper method. (ECF No. 4.) Defendants then filed the Motion to Dismiss currently before this Court. (Mot., ECF No. 5.) In the Motion, Defendants confirmed that "Plaintiff has failed to email a copy of the complaint or serve the complaint by any other proper method per Rule 4." (Id.,

1

2

PageID 16.) As a result, this Court is now satisfied that dismissal of this case is warranted pursuant to Rule 4. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS (ECF No. 5) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Complaint. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/21/2026 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Brooks v. Davol, Inc.
(Jan 21, 2026)