Zenon v. Prime Time Healthcare, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Jeffrey Zenon, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DIRECTING PROPER
) 	SERVICE ON PLAINTIFF
v. 	)
)
Prime Time Healthcare, LLC, 	) 	Case No.: 1:25-cv-00097
)
Defendant. 	)
This matter was removed from state court to this court on April 29, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). On
May 22, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 67). Plaintiff
responded to the motion on June 5, 2026, and Defendant replied on June 22, 2026. (Doc. Nos. 74,
76). On June 29, 2026, Plaintiff requested leave to file a sur-reply, which the court granted on June
30, 2026, and was filed with the court the same day. (Doc. Nos. 80, 81, 82). On July 1, 2026,
Defendant requested leave to file a response to the sur-reply. (Doc. No. 83). The court granted this
request, and on July 2, 2026, Defendant filed its response to Plaintiff’s sur-reply. (Doc. Nos. 83,
84, 85). On July 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response, wherein he argued that Defendant failed to
properly serve him with the request to file a response to Plaintiff’s sur-reply.1 (Doc. No. 86).
This court’s local rules incorporate by reference the Administrative Policy Governing
Electronic Filing and Service. D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 5.1(A). Pursuant to this policy, a filer must serve
a paper copy of electronically filed documents on pro se parties. Administrative Policy Governing
Electronic Filing and Service at p. 3, https://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/ecf/cm_ecf_policy.pdf.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and does not have the ability to file electronically or receive
1 This court concludes upon review of the docket that it is unlikely Plaintiff was properly served with Defendant’s
response to the sur-reply.
Case 1:25-cv-00097-DLH-CRH Document 87 Filed 07/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
notices of electronic filing, Defendant is required to properly serve Plaintiff by serving a paper
copy of any electronically filed document on him.
Upon review of the record, there is no indication that Defendant properly served Plaintiff
with a paper copy of the motion for leave to file a response to Plaintiff’s sur-reply (Doc. No. 83),
or the response to Plaintiff’s sur-reply. (Doc. No. 85). Accordingly, this court ORDERS Defendant
to properly serve Plaintiff with the electronically filed documents at docket nos. 83 and 85, by
August 3, 2026. To the extent Plaintiff contends Defendant’s arguments should not be considered
based on the failure to properly serve him, the court is not inclined to entertain such a suggestion.
It is apparent from Plaintiff’s response (see Doc. No. 86), that he was not in any way prejudiced
by Defendant’s failure to serve him as he was able to file a response in objection, and was made
aware of the relevant filings upon an independent review of PACER.
As a final note, the court cautions Defendant that continued failure to properly serve
Plaintiff, who is acting pro se, may result in the consideration of harsher remedies in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 28th day of July, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:25-cv-00097-DLH-CRH Document 87 Filed 07/28/26 Page 2 of 2