Cao v. Li
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:15-cv-08945
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cao v. Li, Judge Ramos dismissed Cao’s action without prejudice because he failed to complete service after warnings under Rule 4(m).
Cao’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed; the order also directed the clerk to terminate any pending motions.
What happened
Cao v. Li began when Cao filed a complaint in November 2015. He was representing himself, and the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to try to serve the defendants.
The court warned Cao that he was responsible for checking whether service had occurred and requesting more time if necessary. In 2020, the court ordered him to file status reports and warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal. Cao did not respond to the warning or explain why service had not been completed.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which addresses serving defendants within the required time. Judge Edgardo Ramos also directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Cao v. Li · No. 1:15-cv-08945
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 24, 2020
Background
Cao filed the complaint on November 13, 2015, and was proceeding without a lawyer. The court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt service on Cao’s behalf. The order also told Cao that he had to check with the Marshals Service about whether service had been completed and, if necessary, request an extension of time.
On January 29, 2020, the court ordered Cao to file a status report by February 26, 2020. On April 6, 2020, the court issued another status-report order, setting a May 1, 2020 deadline and warning that failing to respond could put the case at risk of dismissal.
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 may dismiss the action without prejudice after giving notice to the plaintiff, or order service within a specified time.
The court noted that more than four and a half years had passed since Cao filed the complaint. It also found that Cao had not responded to the court’s warning and had not provided good cause for the failure to complete service.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED Cao’s action without prejudice for failure to complete service under Rule 4(m). The clerk was directed to terminate any pending motions and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.