Tom Lange Company International v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-00984
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tom Lange Company International v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., Judge Oetken ordered an explanation for service delays or threatened party termination.
The order affects the plaintiffs and defendants LCL Caribbean Corporation, M/V MSC AVNI, and M/V San Antonio. The plaintiffs were required to explain the service issue, and the three defendants faced possible termination as parties if no adequate explanation was filed.
What happened
Tom Lange Company International and other plaintiffs sued MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. and other defendants. The court said the docket did not show service on LCL Caribbean Corporation, M/V MSC AVNI, or M/V San Antonio.
Federal rules generally require plaintiffs to deliver the summons and complaint to each defendant within 90 days after filing the case. The court also explained that an exception for service in another country applies only when plaintiffs tried to serve the defendant there within that period.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to explain in writing why service was not completed within 90 days, or to provide details if service had occurred. Judge Oetken said the court will terminate the three named defendants as parties if it receives no written communication by June 2, 2020, showing good cause for the delay.
The detailed version
- Tom Lange Company International v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. · No. 1:20-cv-00984
- James Oetken
- May 19, 2020
Background
The action was filed on February 5, 2020. The court stated that the docket did not indicate that the plaintiffs had served defendants LCL Caribbean Corporation, M/V MSC AVNI, or M/V San Antonio.
Service requirement
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court noted that an exception for service in a foreign country is available only if the plaintiffs attempted service in that country within the 90-day period.
Order
The court directed the plaintiffs to advise it in writing why they had not served the three defendants within 90 days. If any of those defendants had been served, the plaintiffs were directed to state when and how service was made. The court ordered that, if it received no written communication by June 2, 2020, showing good cause for the failure to serve within 90 days, it would terminate LCL Caribbean Corporation, M/V MSC AVNI, and M/V San Antonio as parties to the action. The order did not state that the court had already terminated those defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.