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 dismissed the claims without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to serve defendants on time and gave no reason.
Alonzo Williams and Rhythm City Entertainment's claims against Danielle Carty, Giovannesa Rodriquez, and Jane Does 1–24 were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Williams v. Carty involved claims by Alonzo Williams and Rhythm City Entertainment against Danielle Carty, Giovannesa Rodriquez, and Jane Does 1–24.
The court had ordered plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve the defendants within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiffs responded that they were voluntarily dismissing the case but did not request more time or explain why service was late.
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed all claims against all defendants without prejudice. He also directed plaintiffs to serve the order on the defendants, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and deadlines, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Carty · No. 1:20-cv-02684
- Gregory Woods
- July 6, 2020
Background
The court had issued an order on July 1, 2020, requiring the plaintiffs to show why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve process within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court directed the plaintiffs to respond by July 6, 2020.
The plaintiffs responded that they were voluntarily dismissing their action under Rule 4(m). The court noted that Rule 4(m) governs service of process, while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits voluntary dismissal. The plaintiffs did not ask for an extension of time to serve the defendants and did not provide a reason for failing to serve them on time.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 4(m) requires an appropriate extension when a plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve a defendant within the required time. The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. Because the plaintiffs gave no reason for their failure to serve and did not request additional time, the court found dismissal appropriate.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants without prejudice. The court directed the plaintiffs to serve a copy of the order on all defendants and keep proof of service. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all deadlines, and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.