Lorenzo v. PLJ Rest. Corp. d/b/a Nicks Pizza and Dimitrios Levantis
Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLJ Rest. Corp. d/b/a Nicks Pizza and Dimitrios Levantis
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-04885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo v. PLJ Rest. Corp., Judge Broderick ordered a good-cause explanation for the service delay and warned that the case will be dismissed without one.
The order affects Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo, who must explain the failure to complete service, and PLJ REST. CORP. d/b/a NICKS PIZZA and DIMITRIOS LEVANTIS, who face possible dismissal of the action if he does not show good cause.
What happened
Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo v. PLJ Rest. Corp. began when Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo filed the case on June 10, 2025, and obtained summonses the next day. The court said he had not filed proof that the defendants were served or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo to submit, by October 1, 2025, a letter of no more than three pages explaining with legal support why the case should not be dismissed under the federal service rule. The court warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days would result in dismissal.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he gave Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo an opportunity to explain the service delay and warned of the possible dismissal that would follow without a sufficient explanation.
The detailed version
- Lorenzo v. PLJ Rest. Corp. d/b/a Nicks Pizza and Dimitrios Levantis · No. 1:25-cv-04885
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo filed this action against PLJ REST. CORP. d/b/a NICKS PIZZA and DIMITRIOS LEVANTIS on June 10, 2025. He obtained summonses on June 11, 2025. The court stated that he had not filed affidavits of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo to submit a letter no longer than three pages by October 1, 2025. The letter must be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause—meaning a sufficient explanation—for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving defendants within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
The court explained that good cause is generally found only in exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also identified the plaintiff’s diligence in trying to complete service and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay as relevant considerations. The court stated that attorney inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It ordered the required explanation and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days would result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.