Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 29, 2020

O'Rourke v. 495 Second Avenue LLC

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:20-cv-00487
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In O’Rourke v. 495 Second Avenue LLC, Judge Netburn ordered an explanation for late service and warned the case may be dismissed without prejudice.

Who this affects

Christopher O’Rourke must explain the failure to serve the summons and complaint. The case could also affect 495 Second Avenue LLC and Khaled Albishari if the court later dismisses the case.

What happened

In O’Rourke v. 495 Second Avenue LLC, Christopher O’Rourke sued 495 Second Avenue LLC and Khaled Albishari. The order said the complaint was filed on January 17, 2020.

The court noted that the summons and complaint had to be served within 90 days, by April 16, 2020. Nothing on the docket showed that O’Rourke had requested a summons or completed service by that deadline.

Judge Sarah Netburn ordered O’Rourke to submit a letter by May 6 explaining the failure. If he cannot show a legally sufficient reason, the court said it may dismiss the case without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
O'Rourke v. 495 Second Avenue LLC · No. 1:20-cv-00487
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Apr. 29, 2020

Background

Christopher O’Rourke filed a complaint against 495 Second Avenue LLC and Khaled Albishari on January 17, 2020. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), he was required to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days, by April 16, 2020.

The order stated that the docket did not show that O’Rourke had requested issuance of a summons or served the defendants within the required period.

Order

The court ordered O’Rourke to submit a letter by May 6, 2020, explaining why he had not served the summons and complaint on time. The court said that, if he could not establish good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for the failure, it might dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning the dismissal would not bar a new filing.

The order did not dismiss the case. It required an explanation and warned of a possible future dismissal.

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.