Atahualpa v. CITY OF NEW YORK
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-06245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Atahualpa v. City of New York: Judge Cronan ordered plaintiffs to report service on Harris by November 4, warning the case may be dismissed.
The plaintiffs and Defendant Katrina Harris, concerning whether and when Harris was served with the summons and complaint.
What happened
In JOSSELYN ATAHUALPA, et al. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., the court addressed whether Defendant Katrina Harris had been served with the summons and complaint. Harris had not appeared, and the docket did not show whether service had occurred.
Judge Cronan ordered the plaintiffs to file a status letter by November 4, 2025, stating whether Harris had been served and, if not, why there was good cause to excuse missing the 90-day service deadline. If service had occurred, the plaintiffs must also file proof of service.
Judge John P. Cronan warned that failure to file the letter could lead to dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Atahualpa v. CITY OF NEW YORK · No. 1:25-cv-06245
- John Cronan
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed the complaint on July 29, 2025. Defendant Katrina Harris had not appeared, and the docket did not indicate whether she had been served.
Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing. If service is not completed within that period, the court may dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice or order service within a specified time. The court must extend the service period if the plaintiff shows good cause.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a status letter by November 4, 2025, explaining whether Harris had been served. If she had not been served, the plaintiffs had to explain why good cause existed to excuse the missed deadline. The court described good cause as requiring diligent attempts to serve that failed because of exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. The plaintiffs had to file the letter even if service had already occurred, and they also had to file proof of service if applicable.
Disposition and Effect
The court did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. It issued a service-related case-management order and warned that failure to file the required letter could result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.