Xu v. Teneo
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-00109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Xu v. Teneo, Judge Woods dismissed the action without prejudice because Xu failed to properly serve the defendants.
Junjai Xu’s action against Teneo and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice because the court found that Xu had not properly served the defendants. The case was closed, and pending motions were terminated.
What happened
In Xu v. Teneo, Junjai Xu sued Teneo and other defendants. The case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York.
The court repeatedly told Xu that sending the summons and complaint by certified or registered mail alone did not satisfy federal or New York service rules. After several extensions and warnings, Xu neither showed that he had properly served the defendants nor requested another extension.
Judge Woods dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). He also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate pending motions, adjourn dates and deadlines, close the case, and mail the order to Xu by certified mail.
The detailed version
- Xu v. Teneo · No. 1:25-cv-00109
- Gregory Woods
- June 28, 2025
Background
Junjai Xu began this action in the Eastern District of New York. The case was later transferred to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods. The opinion states that the case was filed on October 24, 2024, and also refers to a transfer order dated January 3, 2024.
Summonses were issued for all defendants, and amended summonses were later issued for Teneo and Young. The court understood from Xu’s filings that he had attempted to serve the defendants by certified or registered mail. The court explained that mailing a summons and complaint alone was not effective service under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or New York law.
Service of Process
Service of process is the formal delivery of a lawsuit’s summons and complaint in the manner required by law. On January 9, 2025, the court extended Xu’s service deadline to 90 days after the amended summonses were issued, making the deadline April 14, 2025. After Xu did not file notice of service, the court issued an order requiring him to explain why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Xu responded that he had again mailed the summonses and complaint to the defendants and maintained that service by mail was proper. The court again explained the applicable federal and state service requirements and gave Xu two additional weeks either to request another extension or to certify that he had completed proper service. Xu did neither. His later letter repeated his position that service by mail alone was sufficient.
Ruling
The court concluded that Xu had not shown that he properly served the defendants and had not requested another extension. Under Rule 4(m), when a defendant is not served within the required period, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or set another service deadline; an extension is required if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure.
Judge Woods dismissed this action without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all dates and deadlines, close the case, and mail a copy of the order to Xu by certified mail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.