Young v. The Young Women’s Christian Association of the City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-05054
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Debora Young v. The Young Women’s Christian Association, Judge Rochon extended service time to September 23, 2025, and accepted November 25, 2025, for Defendant’s response.
Debora Young received additional time for service, and The Young Women’s Christian Association of the City of New York received a response deadline of November 25, 2025.
What happened
In Debora Young v. The Young Women’s Christian Association of the City of New York, Debora Young’s lawyer did not formally serve the complaint within the required 90 days. The defendant had notice of the complaint in July 2025, and formal service occurred on September 23, 2025, eight days late.
The court found that Young had made reasonable efforts to serve the defendant and that the short delay had not harmed the defendant. The court also noted that the parties had agreed to extend the defendant’s deadline to respond.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon extended Young’s service deadline to September 23, 2025, the date service occurred. The court also accepted the parties’ agreement making the defendant’s answer or other response due by November 25, 2025.
The detailed version
- Young v. The Young Women’s Christian Association of the City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-05054
- Rochon
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
Debora Young filed the complaint on June 16, 2025. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days. The court ordered Young to explain why she had not completed service within that period.
Young’s lawyer stated that the defendant’s lawyer said on July 23, 2025, that she had the complaint, but did not confirm that she would accept service for the defendant. Young’s lawyer later directed a process server to complete service by September 15, 2025. The process server tried but failed to serve the defendant on September 12, and service was completed on September 23—eight days after the 90-day deadline.
On October 15, 2025, the parties filed an agreement extending the defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until November 25, 2025.
Reasoning
Rule 4(m) requires a court to extend the service deadline when a plaintiff shows good cause. In deciding whether good cause exists, courts consider the plaintiff’s reasonable efforts and diligence and any prejudice to the defendant from the delay. The court also has discretion to grant an extension even without good cause, considering factors such as prejudice, whether the defendant had actual notice, and whether the plaintiff had a justifiable explanation.
The court found that Young, through her lawyer, had acted with reasonable diligence in trying to serve the defendant. It also found that the defendant was not prejudiced by the short delay because the defendant had actual notice of the complaint since July 2025 and had sufficient time to respond under the parties’ agreement.
Ruling
The court extended Young’s time to serve the complaint to September 23, 2025, the date on which the defendant was served. The court also accepted the parties’ agreement extending the defendant’s time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until November 25, 2025. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon did not decide the underlying claims in the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.