Dubinsky v. Alperstein

Background

Melvin Dubinsky, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action on December 30, 2024, and paid the filing fees. On January 7, 2025, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for defendants Michael Alperstein and Andrea Glenn Loigman. The summonses issued on January 10, 2025.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff generally must serve defendants within the time allowed by the rule. The court’s January 7 order extended Dubinsky’s service deadline to 90 days after the summonses issued and warned that the action could be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute if he neither served the summonses nor requested more time. The resulting deadline was April 10, 2025.

Failure to Serve

By April 17, 2025, Dubinsky had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case. He had filed an amended complaint on February 21, 2025, but the court stated that an amended complaint does not restart the 90-day service period for defendants named in the original complaint. The court also stated that representing oneself does not excuse improper or late service and does not automatically establish good cause.

Order

The court ordered Dubinsky to submit, no later than May 14, 2025, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, demonstrating good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days after the summonses issued. In this context, good cause generally means exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. The court stated that it would consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice caused to the defendants by the delay.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The order itself did not dismiss the case.