Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 12, 2025

Williams v. Park Avenue Dermatology Associates, P.C.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:25-cv-01797
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Williams v. Park Avenue Dermatology, Judge Broderick ordered Williams to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. Park Avenue Dermatology Associates, P.C. · No. 1:25-cv-01797
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.