Rosa v. Park Avenue South Management, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-00119
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rosa v. Park Avenue South Management, Judge Woods dismissed claims against Park Avenue South Management and John Doe without prejudice because they were not timely served.
Carlos R. Rosa’s claims against Park Avenue South Management, LLC and John Doe were dismissed without prejudice because those defendants were not timely served.
What happened
In Carlos R. Rosa v. Park Avenue South Management, LLC, et al., the court addressed whether claims against Park Avenue South Management and John Doe should be dismissed because they had not been served within the required time.
The court had given Rosa multiple opportunities to explain the failure to serve the defendants and to file service waivers. His counsel reported discussions with Park Avenue South Management but no agreement to waive service, and confirmed that John Doe had not been served. Rosa did not provide a reason establishing good cause for the delay.
The court dismissed the claims against Park Avenue South Management and John Doe without prejudice. Judge Gregory H. Woods also directed Rosa to serve the order on all defendants and keep proof of service.
The detailed version
- Rosa v. Park Avenue South Management, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-00119
- Gregory Woods
- June 25, 2024
Background
The court previously ordered Carlos R. Rosa to explain why his claims against several defendants should not be dismissed for failure to serve process within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Rosa’s counsel stated that he was discussing settlement and waiver of service with some defendants.
The court then directed Rosa to file waivers of service for Park Avenue South Management, LLC and John Doe by June 3, 2024. Rosa did not do so. In a later filing, his counsel stated that he was in contact with counsel for Park Avenue South Management but had not reached an agreement to waive service. Counsel also stated that John Doe had not been served and that counsel’s office had not been in contact with John Doe or any attorney for him.
Legal standard
Rule 4(m) requires a court to extend the service deadline for an appropriate period when a plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve a defendant. The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. When a plaintiff provides no reason excusing the failure to serve, dismissal is appropriate.
Ruling
The court found that Rosa had not provided any reason for failing to timely serve either Park Avenue South Management or John Doe. It dismissed the claims against both defendants without prejudice. The court also directed Rosa to serve a copy of the order on all defendants and retain proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.