Gordon Surgical Group, P.C. v. Empire HealthChoice HMO, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-08547
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gordon Surgical Group v. Empire HealthChoice, Judge Broderick ordered plaintiffs to show good cause for late service or face dismissal.
The plaintiffs must explain their failure to serve the defendants by February 25, 2025; the defendants are affected because the court is considering whether to dismiss the action for lack of timely service.
What happened
Gordon Surgical Group, P.C. and other plaintiffs sued Empire HealthChoice HMO, Inc. and other defendants on November 11, 2024.
The plaintiffs obtained summonses but did not file proof that they served the defendants or take other action to move the case forward. The deadline for service was February 10, 2025.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit a letter explaining why the case should not be dismissed. Judge Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal, but the court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Gordon Surgical Group, P.C. v. Empire HealthChoice HMO, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-08547
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed this action against the defendants on November 11, 2024, and obtained summonses for each defendant on November 12, 2024. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the deadline for serving the defendants was February 10, 2025.
The plaintiffs had not filed an affidavit of service, which is a document showing that service was completed, or taken any other action to prosecute the case. The opinion states that service had not been completed by the deadline.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit, by February 25, 2025, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter must explain why there was good cause for failing to serve the defendants within the required period and why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m).
The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice to the defendant, and that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
The court warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.