Parrish v. 26 Motors Corp.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:20-cv-01510
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Parrish v. 26 Motors Corp., Judge Netburn ordered a service-status explanation and warned the case may be dismissed if service was late without good cause.
Cheyenne Parrish and the defendants, 26 Motors Corp. and Yosef Ayzencot.
What happened
In Parrish v. 26 Motors Corp., Cheyenne Parrish sued 26 Motors Corp. and Yosef Ayzencot under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The court said service was required within 90 days after the summons was issued, and the deadline was May 21, 2020. The docket did not show that the defendants had been served by then.
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered Parrish to submit a letter explaining whether she had served the defendants and, if not, why she missed the deadline. The court said it may dismiss the case without prejudice if she had not served the defendants and could not show good cause.
The detailed version
- Parrish v. 26 Motors Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-01510
- Sarah Netburn
- May 26, 2020
Background
On February 20, 2020, Cheyenne Parrish filed a complaint against 26 Motors Corp. and Yosef Ayzencot under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law.
Service deadline
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) required service within 90 days after the summons was issued. The opinion states that service was due by May 21, 2020, but the docket did not reflect that service had been completed within that period.
Order
The court ordered Parrish to submit a letter explaining whether she had served the defendants. If she had not, the letter must explain why she failed to serve them within the required time. The court stated that, if Parrish had not served the defendants and could not establish good cause for the delay, it may dismiss the case without prejudice. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.