Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2020

Calcano v. Sea New York, Inc.

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:19-cv-09728
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Calcano v. Sea New York, Judge Netburn ordered Marcos Calcano to explain whether he served Sea New York by January 31, 2020.

Who this affects

Marcos Calcano was required to explain the status of service, and Sea New York, Inc. could face dismissal of the case without prejudice if service was not completed and no good cause was shown.

What happened

In Calcano v. Sea New York, Inc., Marcos Calcano sued Sea New York, Inc. on October 21, 2019.

The court said the defendant had to be formally served within 90 days after the summons was issued, which was January 20, 2020. The docket did not show that service occurred by that deadline.

Judge Sarah Netburn ordered Calcano to send a letter by January 31, 2020, explaining whether he had served the defendant and, if not, why he missed the deadline. The court warned that it may dismiss the case without prejudice if he had not served the defendant and could not show a good reason.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Calcano v. Sea New York, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09728
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Jan. 24, 2020

Background

Marcos Calcano filed a complaint against Sea New York, Inc. on October 21, 2019. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summons is issued. The court stated that the service deadline was January 20, 2020.

Court’s Order

The docket did not show that Calcano served Sea New York, Inc. by the deadline. The court ordered him to submit a letter by January 31, 2020, stating whether service had occurred and, if it had not, explaining why he failed to serve the defendant within the required time.

The court stated that it may dismiss the case without prejudice if Calcano had not served the defendant and could not establish good cause, meaning a legally sufficient reason, for the delay. The order did not itself dismiss the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.