Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 16, 2020

Williams v. GHD Professional, North America, Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-04560
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Williams v. GHD Professional, Judge Ramos ordered service by October 16, 2020, or the case would be dismissed without prejudice.

Who this affects

Pamela Williams was required to serve GHD Professional, North America, Inc. and Jemella Limited by October 16, 2020; otherwise, the case would be dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

Williams v. GHD Professional, North America, Inc. is a case brought by Pamela Williams against GHD Professional, North America, Inc. and Jemella Limited on behalf of herself and other people.

Williams filed the complaint on June 15, 2020, but more than 90 days later had not filed proof that she served either defendant. The court also said her amended complaint, filed September 14, did not restart the 90-day service period.

Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered Williams to serve both defendants by October 16, 2020. The court stated that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if she did not do so.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. GHD Professional, North America, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04560
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Sept. 16, 2020

Background

Pamela Williams filed a complaint on June 15, 2020, against GHD Professional, North America, Inc. and Jemella Limited on behalf of herself and other people. More than 90 days after filing, she had not filed proof that either defendant had been served.

Williams filed an amended complaint on September 14, 2020. The court explained that this filing did not restart the 90-day period for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Order

The court ordered Williams to serve GHD Professional and Jemella by October 16, 2020. It stated that if she did not do so, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. The order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.