Casado v. Joys Deli Grocery Corp.
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-03561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Casado v. Joys Deli Grocery Corp., Judge Cronan ordered plaintiffs to report on service to Jorge Luis Sanchez and explain any delay.
The order directly affects plaintiffs Manuel Casado and Desire Castillo and Defendant Jorge Luis Sanchez. Plaintiffs must report on service of Sanchez, and the claims against Sanchez may be dismissed if they do not file the required letter.
What happened
Casado v. Joys Deli Grocery Corp. concerns whether plaintiffs properly served each defendant. The docket showed service on Joys Deli Grocery Corp. and Mirtha Castillo, but did not show whether Jorge Luis Sanchez had been served.
The court ordered plaintiffs to file a letter by August 5, 2025, stating whether Sanchez had been served and, if not, why there was good cause for missing the 90-day service deadline. If service had occurred, plaintiffs also had to file proof of service.
Judge Cronan warned that failing to file the letter could lead to dismissal of the claims against Sanchez for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Casado v. Joys Deli Grocery Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-03561
- John Cronan
- July 29, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Manuel Casado and Desire Castillo filed the complaint on April 29, 2025. The docket showed that Joys Deli Grocery Corp. was served on May 14, 2025, and Mirtha Castillo was served on June 19, 2025. The docket did not show whether Jorge Luis Sanchez had been served, and plaintiffs had not requested more time to serve him.
Service Requirement
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed, the court may dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice or order service by a specified deadline. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the service period for an appropriate time. The order described good cause as requiring diligent attempts and exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
Order
The court ordered plaintiffs to file a status letter by August 5, 2025, stating whether Sanchez had been served. If he had not been served, the letter had to explain why good cause existed to excuse the missed 90-day deadline. Plaintiffs had to file the letter even if service had already occurred; in that event, they also had to file proof of service. The court warned that if no letter were filed, it might dismiss the claims against Sanchez for failure to prosecute. The order did not rule on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.