Volfman v. ATS Restaurant Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-06061
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Volfman v. ATS Restaurant, Judge Broderick ordered Joseph Volfman to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve defendants.
Joseph Volfman, whose case was ordered to be explained, and the defendants, who had not been shown to have been served according to the opinion.
What happened
In Volfman v. ATS Restaurant Corp., Joseph Volfman filed the case on August 9, 2024, and obtained summonses for each defendant three days later. The opinion states that he had not filed proof that the defendants were served or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Volfman to submit, by December 16, 2024, a letter of no more than three pages explaining, with legal support, why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving defendants within the required period.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that the case would be dismissed if Volfman did not submit the letter and show a legally sufficient reason for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Volfman v. ATS Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-06061
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 11, 2024
Background
Joseph Volfman filed this action against ATS Restaurant Corp. doing business as O’HANLON’S and other defendants on August 9, 2024. He obtained a summons for each defendant on August 12, 2024. The court stated that Volfman had not filed an affidavit of service, meaning a sworn document showing that the defendants had been formally served with the lawsuit, and had not taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Volfman to submit a letter no longer than three pages by December 16, 2024. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and show good cause—an adequate legal reason—for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendants caused by delay.
Effect
The court warned that Volfman’s failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal. The order did not itself dismiss the action and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.