I.L. v. CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
I.L., individually and on behalf of B.L., and A.U., individually and on behalf of B.L. v. CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, d/b/a THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-06833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In I.L. v. City School District, Judge Cronan ordered plaintiffs to report on service of the complaint and warned the case may be dismissed.
The plaintiffs must report on service of the summons and complaint and file proof of service if service has occurred. The defendant is affected because the case may be dismissed if the required filing is not made, but the defendant had not appeared as of the order.
What happened
In I.L., individually and on behalf of B.L., and A.U., individually and on behalf of B.L. v. City School District of the City of New York, the plaintiffs sued the City School District of the City of New York, also doing business as the New York City Department of Education. The complaint was filed on August 18, 2025, and the defendant had not appeared.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter by November 26, 2025, stating whether they served the summons and complaint. If they had not, they must explain why there was a legally sufficient reason for missing the 90-day service deadline. If service had occurred, they must also file proof of service. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
Judge John P. Cronan warned that the court may dismiss the case if the plaintiffs do not file the required letter, including for failing to pursue the case. The order also explained that the court may extend the service deadline if the plaintiffs show good cause.
The detailed version
- I.L. v. CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK · No. 1:25-cv-06833
- John Cronan
- Nov. 20, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed the complaint on August 18, 2025. The defendant had not appeared, and the docket did not show whether the defendant had been served. The plaintiffs had not requested more time to complete service.
Order
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a status letter by November 26, 2025, stating whether service of the summons and complaint had been completed. If service had not been completed, the plaintiffs must explain why good cause exists to excuse the missed deadline. If service had been completed, they must file proof of service by the same date.
Effect of the Order
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It warned that failure to file the required letter could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Judge John P. Cronan also noted that the service deadline may be extended if the plaintiffs show good cause, which the order described as diligent efforts thwarted by exceptional circumstances beyond their control.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.