UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Bodnar Capital Management, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Milton “Todd” Ault, III; William B. Horne; Lynne
Silverstein; Melanie Glazer; Sothi Thillairajah; Scott I.
Livingston; Zealous Holdings, Inc., f/k/a The Ault
Glazer Group, Inc., f/k/a Ault Glazer Bodnar &
Company, Inc.; Ault Glazer Bodnar Investment
Management, LLC; Ault Glazer & Co., LLC, f/k/a
Ault Glazer Bodnar Securities, LLC; Adult
Entertainment Capital, Inc.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 3:08cv1601 (JBA)
July 9, 2009
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides:
If a defendant is not served within 120 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.
Plaintiff Bodnar Capital Management, LLC(“BCM”) brought this action on October
20, 2008 against the ten defendants listed in the caption. The docket sheet reflects that
summonses were issued for each defendant on October 21, 2008, but that summonses were
returned executed only on Zealous Holdings, Inc., f/k/a The Ault Glazer Group, Inc., f/k/a
Ault Glazer Bodnar & Company, Inc. [Doc. # 10] and Milton “Todd” Ault, III [Doc. # 14].
Default Judgment entered against these two defendants on June 18, 2009. (See Order on
Plaintiff’s Motions for Joint and Several Default Judgment [Doc. # 21]; Judgment
[Doc. # 22].)
Case 3:08-cv-01601-JBA Document 24 Filed 07/10/09 Page 1 of 2
However, summonses were never returned executed against the remaining eight
defendants (William B. Horne; Lynne Silverstein; Melanie Glazer; Sothi Thillairajah; Scott
I. Livingston; Ault Glazer Bodnar Investment Management, LLC; Ault Glazer & Co., LLC,
f/k/a Ault Glazer Bodnar Securities, LLC; and Adult Entertainment Capital, Inc.). On June
18, 2009 the Court issued a notice of proposed dismissal that stated:
More than 120 days having passed and no return of service having been filed
as to these eight defendants, this case is subject to dismissal. Plaintiff is
ordered to show cause by July 2, 2009 why this case should not be dismissed
as against the eight remaining defendants. If Plaintiff fails to respond or fails
to show cause, this case will be dismissed in its entirety on July 6, 2009.
(Order to Show Cause [Doc. # 23] at 2.)
No cause having been shown or further action having been taken by the Plaintiff, and
no satisfactory explanation therefor having been submitted to the Court within twenty (20)
days of such notice (or by July 8, 2009), this case is now subject to dismissal under District
of Connecticut Local Rule 41(a), and IT IS ORDERED that this action be and is hereby
dismissed without costs to any party.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 9th day of July, 2009.
