Austin v. Sigiri NY LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-09456
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Austin v. Sigiri NYC LLC, Judge Broderick ordered Patrick Austin to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve defendants.
Plaintiff Patrick Austin, who must explain the failure to serve the defendants; Sigiri NYC LLC and Vita Leasing Ltd., who are the defendants and may be affected by a later dismissal.
What happened
In Austin v. Sigiri NYC LLC, Patrick Austin filed this case against Sigiri NYC LLC and Vita Leasing Ltd. on December 1, 2024, and obtained summonses on December 12, 2024. The opinion says he had not filed proof of service or taken other steps to move the case forward.
The court ordered Austin to submit, by April 7, 2025, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under the federal rule governing timely service of the complaint. The letter must be supported by legal authority and show good cause for the failure to serve the defendants within 90 days.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. He warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause will result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Sigiri NY LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09456
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 25, 2025
Background
Patrick Austin filed the action on December 1, 2024. He obtained summonses for the defendants on December 12, 2024. The court stated that Austin had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Austin to submit a letter of no more than three pages by April 7, 2025. The letter must be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns serving defendants within the required period after a complaint is filed.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve was caused by circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendant from the delay. The court noted that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it gave Austin an opportunity to show good cause and warned that failing to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause will result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick therefore issued a service-related procedural order rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.