Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Limited
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-01100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Ltd., Judge Furman directed Plaintiff to limit extra filings and serve the complaint.
The order directly addressed Plaintiff’s additional filings and the requirement to serve the complaint on the defendants.
What happened
In Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Ltd., the Court addressed Plaintiff’s repeated filings after receiving permission to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff had submitted declarations, letters, and notices about actions by individual defendants and seemingly unrelated third parties.
The Court said Plaintiff should stop making those submissions unless court action was needed or the Court requested information. The Court also noted that the docket showed no proof that any defendant had been served, even though the Fifth Amended Complaint had been filed more than two months earlier.
Judge Jesse M. Furman directed Plaintiff to focus on serving the complaint within the applicable deadlines and warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order did not dismiss the case or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Limited · No. 1:23-cv-01100
- Jesse Furman
- May 12, 2025
Background
After the Court granted leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a series of declarations, letters, and notices concerning actions by individual defendants and seemingly unrelated third parties. The Court cited docket entries 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87.
The Court also observed that the docket did not show proof of service on any defendant. The Fifth Amended Complaint had been filed more than two months earlier. Service is the formal delivery of the complaint and related papers to a defendant.
Court’s Direction
The Court directed Plaintiff to refrain from additional submissions unless court intervention was needed or the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide information. It also directed Plaintiff to focus on serving the complaint within the relevant deadlines.
The Court quoted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed and allows a court to dismiss an action without prejudice against an unserved defendant or set a new service deadline. The Court also cited Second Circuit authority stating that the foreign-country service exception does not apply when a plaintiff did not attempt service in the foreign country within 90 days.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Jesse M. Furman warned that Plaintiff otherwise risked dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The order did not dismiss the action, rule on a motion, or decide the merits of the claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.