Williams v. Park Avenue Dermatology Associates, P.C.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-01797
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Park Avenue Dermatology, Judge Broderick ordered Williams to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve.
Milton Williams and Park Avenue Dermatology Associates, P.C.; the order requires Williams to explain his failure to serve the defendant and warns that the action will be dismissed if he does not do so.
What happened
In Williams v. Park Avenue Dermatology Associates, P.C., Milton Williams sued Park Avenue Dermatology Associates, P.C. on March 3, 2025. The opinion does not address the underlying claims.
The court said Williams’s deadline to serve the defendant was June 2, 2025, but he had not obtained a summons, filed proof of service, or taken other action to prosecute the case. The court gave him until July 7, 2025, to submit a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that Williams must show legally recognized good cause for the delay. The order states that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause will result in dismissal of the action.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Park Avenue Dermatology Associates, P.C. · No. 1:25-cv-01797
- Vernon Broderick
- June 12, 2025
Background
Milton Williams filed this action against Park Avenue Dermatology Associates, P.C. on March 3, 2025. The court stated that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Williams’s deadline to serve the defendant was June 2, 2025.
The court found that Williams had not obtained a summons, filed an affidavit of service, or taken any other action to prosecute the case. The opinion does not discuss the merits of Williams’s claims.
Order
The court ordered Williams to submit, by July 7, 2025, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter must demonstrate good cause—meaning a legally sufficient reason, generally involving exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control—for failing to serve the defendant on time.
The court cited the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendant as relevant considerations. It also stated that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause. The court warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint will result in dismissal of the action.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he ordered Williams to explain why dismissal should not occur and warned that failure to make the required showing will result in dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.