Sanchez v. Cipriani 42nd Street LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-06552
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sanchez v. Cipriani 42nd Street LLC, Judge Broderick set April 23 deadlines for dismissal paperwork, service proof, and Cipriani LLC’s response.
Jorgelys Vasquez Sanchez, Cipriani 42nd Street LLC, Giuseppe Cipriani, and Luisa Giron. The order particularly affected the plaintiff’s service obligations, Cipriani 42nd Street LLC’s obligation to respond if not dismissed, and all parties’ deadline to file a dismissal agreement.
What happened
In Sanchez v. Cipriani 42nd Street LLC, the plaintiff served Cipriani 42nd Street LLC but had not filed proof that Giuseppe Cipriani and Luisa Giron were served. The company also had not answered after receiving four extensions, and the parties reported a settlement in principle but did not file the promised dismissal agreement.
The court ordered the parties to file a dismissal agreement by April 23, 2025, if they intended to end the case. If the individual defendants were not included in that agreement, the plaintiff had to file proof of timely service or explain, with legal support, why there was good reason for the delay. If service was untimely and no good-cause showing was made, the court warned that the action would be dismissed. If Cipriani 42nd Street LLC was not included in a dismissal agreement, it had to answer or otherwise respond by the same date.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the underlying claims in this order. He set deadlines and warned of possible dismissal for failure to serve the individual defendants, while requiring Cipriani 42nd Street LLC to respond if its claims were not dismissed.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Cipriani 42nd Street LLC · No. 1:24-cv-06552
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
Jorgelys Vasquez Sanchez filed the action on August 29, 2024. The plaintiff filed an affidavit showing service on Cipriani 42nd Street LLC on September 18, 2024, but did not file affidavits showing service on the two individual defendants, Giuseppe Cipriani and Luisa Giron.
Cipriani 42nd Street LLC’s response to the complaint was initially due October 7, 2024. The company requested and received four extensions. In granting the fourth extension, the court set February 7, 2025, as the response deadline and stated that it would be the last extension.
On February 7, 2025, counsel for Cipriani 42nd Street LLC and the plaintiff notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. They requested until April 11, 2025, to file a stipulation of dismissal, meaning a written agreement ending some or all claims. The court approved that request and directed the parties to clarify whether the individual defendants would also be dismissed.
Court’s Orders
The court ordered that any intended stipulation of dismissal be filed by April 23, 2025, and that it clearly state whether all claims, including the claims against Giuseppe Cipriani and Luisa Giron, were being dismissed.
If a stipulation dismissing the claims against the individual defendants was not filed, the plaintiff had to file affidavits showing that those defendants were timely served by April 23, 2025. If service was not timely, the plaintiff instead had to file by that date a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause for the delay under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and warned that failure to make the required filing and showing would result in dismissal of the action. The court stated that no extension requests would be granted.
If a stipulation dismissing the claims against Cipriani 42nd Street LLC was not filed, the company had to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by April 23, 2025. The court again stated that no extension requests would be granted.
Disposition and Classification
The court entered a procedural order setting filing and response deadlines; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s claims or dismiss the action in this order. The order warned that dismissal would follow if the plaintiff failed to address untimely service and good cause as required, but it did not itself enter that dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.