Bass v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ASISA BASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-11405
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CHANGE SERVICE ADDRESS
(ECF NO. 15)
A.
Plaintiff Asisa Bass, proceeding pro se, sues Defendant Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
referred the case to the undersigned to resolve all pretrial matters under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 8.
After ordering Bass to show cause, the Court recommended that the
case be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to
serve Experian. ECF No. 12; ECF No. 14. Rather than serve Experian’s
officer, resident agent, or other authorized agent, Bass improperly mailed
Case 2:25-cv-11405-NGE-EAS ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 1 of 5

2
the service documents to Experian’s general postal address for credit
disputes. ECF No. 14, PageID.55-57. Bass now moves for leave to serve
Experian’s registered agent, CT Corporation System, at 330 N. Brand
Blvd., Suite 700, Glendale, CA 91203. ECF No. 15.
B.
Bass seeks to serve Experian at another address after the summons
expired under Rule 4(m). The Court may modify deadlines for good cause.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). But when a party seeks an extension after the
deadline, the Court must also apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).
Century Indem. Co. v. Begley Co., 323 F.R.D. 237, 240-42 (E.D. Ky. 2018).
Under Rule 6(b), when a motion for extension is made after the relevant
deadline, the moving party must show excusable neglect. 	Id. 	To decide
whether a party’s tardiness is due to “excusable neglect,” courts weigh
these equitable factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party;
(2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings,
(3) the reason for the delay, (4) whether the delay was within the
reasonable control of the moving party, and (5) whether the late-filing party
acted in good faith.” 	Century Indem., 323 F.R.D. at 241-42.
Bass has not shown excusable neglect. Bass knew that CT
Corporation was Experian’s registered agent and included the Glendale
Case 2:25-cv-11405-NGE-EAS ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 2 of 5

3
address in her complaint. ECF No. 1, PageID.2. Yet she tried to serve
Experian at its general postal address in Texas. ECF No. 14, PageID.55-
57. Bass needed to serve Experian by August 12, 2025, but she did not try
to correct the address even after the Court ordered her to show cause in
September 2025. ECF No. 12. Instead, she waited until after the Court
recommended dismissal to try to correct the service address, offering no
explanation for why she failed to serve Experian’s registered agent from the
outset.
It has now been five months since Bass filed the action, and there is
no guarantee that serving Experian at the Glendale address will be proper.
Bass offers no discussion of why the Glendale address is proper or how
she intends to effect service (e.g., by mail or personal service). Given the
already lengthy delay in serving Experian and the likelihood of further
delays, the Court DENIES Bass’s motion.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 22, 2025
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this report and recommendation,
Case 2:25-cv-11405-NGE-EAS ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 3 of 5

4
any party may serve and file specific written objections to this Court’s
findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). If a party fails to timely file specific objections, any further appeal
is waived. 	Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). 	And
only the specific objections to this report and recommendation are
preserved for appeal; all other objections are waived. 	Willis v. Secretary of
HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).
Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,”
etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this report and
recommendation to which it pertains. Within 14 days after service of
objections, any non-objecting party must file a response to the
objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in the
same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to
Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in
length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page
limitation. If the Court determines that any objections lack merit, it may rule
without awaiting the response.
Case 2:25-cv-11405-NGE-EAS ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 4 of 5

5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on October 22, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-11405-NGE-EAS ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 5 of 5