Samuel Lopez v. J. Jean Realty Inc
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-07320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Samuel Lopez v. J. Jean Realty, Judge Broderick ordered proof of service or a good-cause explanation by January 10, warning of dismissal.
Samuel Lopez must provide proof of timely service on J. Jean Realty Inc. and Trapizzino Les LLC, or explain the lack of timely service and show good cause, by January 10, 2025. The case could be dismissed if he fails to do so.
What happened
In Samuel Lopez v. J. Jean Realty Inc. and Trapizzino Les LLC, the court noted that Samuel Lopez filed the case on September 27, 2024, but had not filed proof that the defendants were served.
The court ordered Lopez to submit service affidavits by January 10, 2025. If service was not timely, he must instead submit a legal letter of no more than three pages explaining why there was good cause for the delay.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to provide the required materials and show good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days would result in dismissal. The order did not dismiss the case at that time.
The detailed version
- Samuel Lopez v. J. Jean Realty Inc · No. 1:24-cv-07320
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 2, 2025
Background
Samuel Lopez filed this action against J. Jean Realty Inc. and Trapizzino Les LLC on September 27, 2024. He obtained summonses on September 30, 2024. The opinion states that he had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Lopez to submit affidavits showing that the defendants were timely served no later than January 10, 2025. If the defendants were not timely served, the court ordered Lopez to submit by that date a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Rule 4(m) concerns the time for serving defendants. The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. The court also identified the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice to the defendants as relevant considerations, and stated that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that Lopez's failure to submit the required affidavits or letter, and to demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint, would result in dismissal of the action. The order itself did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.