Recast Energy Louisville, LLC v. Sompo America Insurance Services LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-08833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Recast Energy Lousville v. Sompo America, Judge Broderick ordered service proof or good-cause briefing and warned of dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Recast Energy Lousville, LLC must address service on Tokio Marine and indicate whether it intends to pursue default judgment against Zurich American Insurance Company, Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, and Sompo America Insurance Services LLC. The order also affects Tokio Marine and the three nonappearing defendants because the case may be dismissed or proceed toward default-related relief depending on Recast Energy’s actions.
What happened
In Recast Energy Lousville, LLC v. Sompo America Insurance Services LLC, Recast Energy filed an amended complaint and provided proof that three defendants had been served. It had not provided proof of serving Tokio Marine America Insurance Company, and the three served defendants had not responded or appeared by their deadlines.
The court ordered Recast Energy to file proof of timely service on Tokio Marine by February 17, 2025. If service was not timely, Recast Energy had to submit a letter of no more than three pages explaining, with legal authority, why there was a good reason for the delay. The court warned that failing to show good cause could result in dismissal of the action.
Judge Broderick also directed Recast Energy to seek default judgment against the three nonappearing defendants by February 28, 2025, if it intended to do so. He warned that failing to do so or otherwise showing an intent to continue the case could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the underlying insurance dispute.
The detailed version
- Recast Energy Louisville, LLC v. Sompo America Insurance Services LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08833
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
Recast Energy filed an amended complaint on December 30, 2024. It filed affidavits showing service on Zurich American Insurance Company, Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, and Sompo America Insurance Services LLC. The order states that Recast Energy had not filed an affidavit showing service of the amended complaint on Tokio Marine America Insurance Company.
The response deadlines for Liberty Surplus and Sompo were February 4, 2025, and the deadline for Zurich was February 7, 2025. None of those three defendants had appeared or responded. The court also stated that Recast Energy had taken no action to prosecute the case.
Court’s Orders
The court ordered Recast Energy to file, by February 17, 2025, an affidavit showing timely service on Tokio Marine. If Tokio Marine had not been timely served, Recast Energy instead had to submit, by that date, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority showing good cause for the failure to serve. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court explained, failure to serve within the required period may lead to dismissal unless good cause is shown. The court described good cause as generally involving exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and noted that attorney inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
The court warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving Tokio Marine within ninety days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal of the action.
The court further ordered that, if Recast Energy intended to seek default judgment against Zurich, Liberty Surplus, and Sompo, it had to do so under Rule 4(H) of the judge’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases by February 28, 2025. Default judgment is a judgment sought because a defendant has failed to appear or respond. The court stated that failure to seek default judgment or otherwise demonstrate an intent to prosecute the litigation could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Disposition and Classification
The order did not grant or deny a motion, enter a dismissal, decide whether any party was liable, or resolve the underlying insurance dispute. It set deadlines and warned that dismissal could follow if Recast Energy failed to address service and prosecution. This is a procedural order because it concerns service of process and prosecution of the case rather than the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.