K.R. v. New York City Department Of Education
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-02466
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In K.R. v. New York City Department Of Education, Judge Broderick ordered K.R. to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve process.
K.R. was required to explain the failure to serve the New York City Department of Education by July 1, 2020. The defendant could face dismissal of the action if K.R. did not comply and show good cause.
What happened
K.R. filed this case against the New York City Department of Education on March 20, 2020, and obtained a summons five days later. The court said K.R. had not filed proof of service or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered K.R. to submit, by July 1, 2020, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under the federal rule governing service of process. The letter had to cite legal authority and show good cause—generally, exceptional circumstances beyond K.R.’s control—for not serving the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The opinion does not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- K.R. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:20-cv-02466
- Vernon Broderick
- June 24, 2020
Background
K.R. filed the action against the New York City Department of Education on March 20, 2020. K.R. obtained a summons on March 25, 2020. The court stated that K.R. had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered K.R. to submit, no later than July 1, 2020, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter had to demonstrate good cause why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which addresses the time for serving a summons and complaint.
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 proper service and any prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. The court further noted that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition and Warning
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered K.R. to explain why dismissal should not occur and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.