Alexander Gomez v. 3513 East Tremont LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-08159
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alexander Gomez v. 3513 East Tremont LLC, Judge Broderick ordered Gomez to explain why the case should not be dismissed for untimely service.
Alexander Gomez and the defendants, including 3513 East Tremont LLC.
What happened
Alexander Gomez sued 3513 East Tremont LLC and other defendants. The opinion says he filed the case on October 28, 2024, and obtained summonses the next day.
Under the federal service deadline, Gomez had until January 16, 2025, to serve the defendants. The court said he had not filed proof of service or taken another action to move the case forward.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Gomez to submit, by February 10, 2025, a legal letter of no more than three pages explaining why there was good cause for the delay. The court warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal, but the order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Alexander Gomez v. 3513 East Tremont LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08159
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 3, 2025
Background
Alexander Gomez filed this action against 3513 East Tremont LLC and other defendants on October 28, 2024. He obtained summonses for each defendant on October 29, 2024.
Service Deadline
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a plaintiff to serve the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The court determined that Gomez's deadline to complete service was January 16, 2025. As of the order, Gomez had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Gomez to submit, no later than February 10, 2025, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause for failing to serve the defendants within the required period. The court described good cause as generally requiring exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control and noted that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice to the defendants. The court also stated that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The order required an explanation and did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.