Guglielmo v. Takeya USA Corporation
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-05575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guglielmo v. Takeya USA Corporation, Judge Broderick ordered proof of service or a good-cause explanation by November 2, warning of dismissal.
Joseph Guglielmo was required to provide proof of service or explain why the case should not be dismissed. Takeya USA Corporation was the defendant whose service had not been documented in the court's record.
What happened
In Guglielmo v. Takeya USA Corporation, Joseph Guglielmo sued Takeya USA Corporation. The court said Guglielmo had not filed proof that Takeya was served or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Guglielmo to file, by November 2, an affidavit showing that Takeya was timely served. If service had not occurred, he instead had to file a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, explaining why there was good cause for the delay.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to file the required letter and show good cause for not serving Takeya within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal. The order did not dismiss the case at that time.
The detailed version
- Guglielmo v. Takeya USA Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-05575
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 27, 2020
Background
Joseph Guglielmo filed this action against Takeya USA Corporation on July 20, 2020, and obtained a summons the next day. The court stated that Guglielmo had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Guglielmo to file an affidavit of service by November 2, 2020, demonstrating that he timely served Takeya. If service had not been completed, Guglielmo had to submit a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, explaining why there was good cause for the failure to serve Takeya.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also noted that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice to the defendant, and that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. He warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve Takeya within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.