Cheroti v. Olshan
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-03869
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cheroti v. Olshan, Judge Broderick ordered Derrick Cheroti to show good cause for failing to serve defendants or face dismissal.
Derrick Cheroti and the defendants named in the action, including Andrea Olshan.
What happened
Derrick Cheroti filed Cheroti v. Olshan on May 8, 2025, and obtained a summons the next day. The opinion says he had not filed proof that defendants were served or taken other action to move the case forward.
Judge Broderick ordered Cheroti to submit, by September 2, 2025, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The letter had to be supported by legal authority and show good cause for the failure to serve defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint.
The court warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Cheroti v. Olshan · No. 1:25-cv-03869
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 18, 2025
Background
Derrick Cheroti filed this action against Andrea Olshan and other defendants on May 8, 2025. He obtained a summons on May 9, 2025. As of the date of the order, Cheroti had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Cheroti to submit a letter by September 2, 2025. The letter may not exceed three pages and must be supported by legal authority. It must demonstrate good cause for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns timely service of process.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve process on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice caused to defendants by the delay. The order noted that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.