Park v. PVH Corp.

Background

Hee Do Park filed the Complaint on May 2, 2025. PVH Corp. had not appeared. The docket did not show whether PVH Corp. had been served, and Park had not requested an extension of time to serve it.

Court’s Order

The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally requires service within 90 days after the Complaint is filed. Under that rule, if service is not completed on time, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice against the defendant or order service within a specified time, subject to an extension when the plaintiff shows good cause.

The court ordered Park to file a status letter by August 8, 2025. The letter must state whether the summons and Complaint had been served on PVH Corp. If service had not been made, the letter must explain why good cause existed to excuse the failure to meet the 90-day deadline. The court described good cause as requiring a showing that, despite diligent attempts, service could not be made because of exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.

Park had to file the letter even if service had already been completed. If PVH Corp. had been served, Park also had to file proof of service on the docket by August 8, 2025.

Disposition and Effect

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It warned that the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Park did not file the required letter. Judge John P. Cronan entered the order on August 1, 2025.