Girotto v. ST Tropez Wine Bar, LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-02165
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Girotto v. ST Tropez Wine Bar, LLC, Judge Broderick ordered a service explanation and warned that the case could be dismissed under Rule 4(m).
Luigi Girotto was required to explain why he had not served the defendants. ST Tropez Wine Bar, LLC, and the other defendants were affected because the court warned that the action could be dismissed if Girotto did not show good cause.
What happened
In Girotto v. ST Tropez Wine Bar, LLC, Luigi Girotto filed the case on March 10, 2020, and obtained summonses the next day. The court said he had not filed proof that the defendants were served or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Girotto to submit, by June 22, 2020, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed. The letter had to show a legally sufficient reason for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Girotto v. ST Tropez Wine Bar, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02165
- Vernon Broderick
- June 15, 2020
Background
Luigi Girotto filed the action against ST Tropez Wine Bar, LLC, and other defendants on March 10, 2020. He obtained summonses on March 11, 2020. The court stated that, as of June 15, 2020, Girotto had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order to explain lack of service
The court ordered Girotto to submit a letter of no more than three pages by June 22, 2020. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause—meaning a legally sufficient explanation—for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving defendants within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
The court cited authority stating that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances beyond a plaintiff's control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendant caused by delay. The court further noted that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he required Girotto to explain the failure to serve the defendants and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal. The order did not address the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.