Streblow et al v. Club 180 et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHUCK STREBLOW, et al.;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CLUB 180, et al.,
Defendants.
8:25CV241
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, “If 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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(m).
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 1, 2025 (Filing No. 1) naming over 50
Defendants. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 21, 2025, seeking to add many
more. (Filing No. 24). Plaintiffs requested summons for many of the named defendants,
which were issued within a day of the corresponding requests. On June 11, 2025, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which remains pending before
the district court. (Filing No. 169). More than 90 days has elapsed since the initial
complaint was filed. To date, many of the named defendants have not been served,
summarized as follows:
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 214 Filed: 11/03/25 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
No summons requested. It appears Plaintiff never requested a summons as to
Defendants Malik Harmon, David Looloo, Brooke Leibert, Elena Rhodd-
Morales, Teaona Mason, Lanie Wilson, Patience Elizabeth, Brittney Dinovo,
Janae Balt, Roman, Echo, Jessie, Octavia, Sapphire, Mireya, Tiny, and Chad;
Summons issued, no return filed. Plaintiff requested a summons, which was
issued to the following defendants, but never filed a return of service,
including Christina Craft (Filing No. 14, Filing No. 16); Breauna Hoffman
(Filing No. 40, Filing No. 49); Kiara Morales (Filing No. 48, Filing No. 49);
A. Jansen (Filing No. 46, Filing No. 49); Chandler Mahoney a/k/a Winter
(Filing No. 45, Filing No. 49); Alyssa aka Amira aka Princess AK (Filing No.
39, Filing No. 49);
Summons issued, returned unexecuted. Plaintiff requested a summons, which
was issued to the following defendants, but the service was returned
unexecuted and Plaintiff took no further action: Nicholas Scalise d/b/a DJ
Next1 (Filing No. 7, Filing No. 16, Filing No. 50, Filing No. 52, Filing No.
58, Filing No. 128); Bravo1 Security, Inc. (Filing No. 12, Filing No. 16,
Filing No. 124); Michael Elayan (Filing No. 26, Filing No. 36, Filing No.
125); Stu Sleeper a/k/a Stupac X (Filing No. 44, Filing No. 49, Filing No.
57, Filing No. 91, Filing No. 84); David Ekdahl (Filing No. 10, Filing No.
16, Filing No. 88, Filing No. 89, Filing No. 90, Filing No. 150); Marley
Nygaard (Filing No. 56, Filing No. 58, Filing No. 134); Jalil Tookhi (Filing
No. 55, Filing No. 58, Filing No. 92); Ellie Jaeke (Filing No. 42, Filing No.
49, Filing No. 77, Filing No. 81, Filing No. 91, Filing No. 145); Savannah
Ludwick aka Santana (Filing No. 51, Filing No. 54, Filing No. 58, Filing No.
74, Filing No. 87, Filing No. 90); Eric Havermann (Filing No. 8, Filing No.
16, Filing No. 35, Filing No. 36, Filing No. 76, Filing No. 78, Filing No. 80,
Filing No. 91, Filing No. 144); Miroslava Kotsan (Filing No. 41, Filing No.
49, Filing No. 116); Blaike Koca (Filing No. 38, Filing No. 49, Filing No.
113); and Abdul Rahmanzai (Filing No. 43, Filing No. 49, Filing No. 207).
Plaintiff has not taken any action on any of these defendants since May 2025. On
October 31, 2025 and November 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to serve eight
defendants by alternate means. (Filing No. 208, Filing No. 210, Filing No. 211, Filing No.
212, Filing No. 213). Those motions were denied for failure to comply with Nebraska state
law. Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided any reason for his failure to serve the other
Defendants referenced herein in a case that has now been pending for over seven months.
The deadline to serve under Rule 4(m) runs from the date of the original complaint, and
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 214 Filed: 11/03/25 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
not from any amended complaint that may be filed. See Lee v, Airgas Mid-South, Inc., 793
F.3d 894, 897 (8th Cir. 2015) (the deadline period provided by Rule 4(m) is not restarted
by the filing of an amended complaint, other than for newly added defendants) (internal
quotation and citations omitted).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until November 14, 2025, to
show cause why these defendants should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m). The failure to timely comply with this order may result in dismissal of
these defendants without further notice.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ryan C. Carson
United States Magistrate Judge
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 214 Filed: 11/03/25 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>