Williams v. Carty
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-02684
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Carty, Judge Woods ordered plaintiffs to prove service or explain by July 6, 2020, or face possible dismissal under Rule 4(m).
Alonzo Williams and Rhythm City Entertainment, whose failure to file proof of service prompted the court's order, and the named defendants, who were to receive a copy of the order.
What happened
Alonzo Williams and Rhythm City Entertainment filed this case against Danielle Carty, Giovанessa Rodriquez, and Jane Does 1–24 on March 31, 2020. The court said plaintiffs had not filed proof that any defendant had been served.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed, the court may dismiss the action against the unserved defendant or set a new deadline for service.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered plaintiffs, by July 6, 2020, either to file proof of service or explain why their claims should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants on time. Plaintiffs also had to send this order to all defendants and keep proof that they did so. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Carty · No. 1:20-cv-02684
- Gregory Woods
- July 1, 2020
Background
Alonzo Williams and Rhythm City Entertainment filed the action on March 31, 2020, against Danielle Carty, Giovанessa Rodriquez, and Jane Does 1–24. As of July 1, 2020, plaintiffs had not filed proof of service for any defendant.
Rule and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that, if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—after notice to the plaintiff—must either dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service occur within a specified time. The court also cited authority stating that courts in the Southern District of New York generally interpret Rule 4(m) as requiring plaintiffs to file proof of service within the 90-day period.
Order
The court directed plaintiffs, by July 6, 2020, to do one of two things: file proof of service, or show cause—that is, explain—why their claims against defendants should not be dismissed for failing to serve process within the time allowed by Rule 4(m). Plaintiffs were also directed to serve a copy of the order on all defendants and retain proof of that service. The order did not dismiss the action; it required plaintiffs to provide proof or an explanation before the court considered dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.