PacSec3, LLC v. Alibaba Cloud US LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-00678
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In PacSec3 v. Alibaba Cloud, Judge Broderick ordered PacSec3 to explain its lack of service and prosecution or face possible dismissal.
PacSec3, LLC, Alibaba Cloud US LLC, Alibaba.com US E-Commerce Corp., Alibaba.Com U.S. LLC, and Alibaba.com LLC; the order directly required action by PacSec3 and warned that the case could be dismissed if it did not comply.
What happened
PacSec3, LLC sued Alibaba Cloud US LLC and three related defendants. Alibaba Cloud was served but did not respond, while the other defendants were not served and no summonses were obtained for them.
The court ordered PacSec3 to file a legal-supporting letter by May 15, 2025, explaining why the unserved defendants should not be dismissed from the case for failure to serve them within 90 days. The letter must also state what PacSec3 intends to do about Alibaba Cloud, including whether it will seek a default judgment.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to file the letter and show good cause could lead to dismissal under the federal rules governing service and failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- PacSec3, LLC v. Alibaba Cloud US LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00678
- Vernon Broderick
- May 1, 2025
Background
PacSec3, LLC filed the action on January 23, 2025, against Alibaba Cloud US LLC, Alibaba.com US E-Commerce Corp., Alibaba.Com U.S. LLC, and Alibaba.com LLC. PacSec3 requested that a summons issue only for Alibaba Cloud. The proof of service stated that Alibaba Cloud’s response was due March 6, 2025, but Alibaba Cloud had not appeared or responded by the time of the order.
The other three defendants—the defendants the order calls the “Unserved Defendants”—had not been served, and PacSec3 had not obtained summonses for them. PacSec3 also had not sought a default judgment against Alibaba Cloud or taken other action to prosecute the case. The 90-day service deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) was April 23, 2025.
Court’s Order
The court ordered PacSec3 to submit, by May 15, 2025, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter must show good cause for why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) as to the Unserved Defendants. The order explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice caused by delay. It also stated that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
The court separately ordered PacSec3 to explain its intentions regarding Alibaba Cloud, including whether it would seek a default judgment. The court warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the Unserved Defendants within 90 days, and for failing to seek a default judgment or otherwise prosecute the case against Alibaba Cloud, could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Disposition
The order did not dismiss the case. It required PacSec3 to provide the specified explanation and warned of possible dismissal if PacSec3 failed to do so. Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on May 1, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.