Hernandez v. Buona Notte Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-00787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez v. Buona Notte, Judge Broderick ordered Hernandez to show good cause for not serving defendants, warning that failure could lead to dismissal.
Jose Hernandez, Buona Notte Inc., and 120 Mulberry Street LLC.
What happened
Hernandez v. Buona Notte Inc. began when Jose Hernandez sued Buona Notte Inc. and 120 Mulberry Street LLC. He obtained a summons but had not filed proof that the defendants were served or taken other steps to prosecute the case.
The court ordered Hernandez to submit, within 14 days, a legal letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued this order on June 16, 2020. The order did not dismiss the case at that time; it required Hernandez to explain the failure to serve the defendants.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Buona Notte Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00787
- Vernon Broderick
- June 16, 2020
Background
Jose Hernandez filed this action against Buona Notte Inc. and 120 Mulberry Street LLC on January 29, 2020. He obtained a summons on January 30, 2020. As of the order's date, Hernandez had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Hernandez to submit a letter within 14 days of the order. The letter could not exceed three pages and had to be supported by legal authority. It had to demonstrate good cause for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns timely service of process.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure to serve process on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. The court noted that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.