Williams v. GHD Professional, North America, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-04560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. GHD Professional, Judge Ramos dismissed Williams’s action without prejudice because she did not complete service.
Pamela Williams’s action against GHD Professional, North America, Inc. and Jemella Limited was dismissed without prejudice because service was not completed; the case was closed.
What happened
Williams v. GHD Professional, North America, Inc. involved Pamela Williams’s lawsuit against GHD Professional, North America, Inc. and Jemella Limited.
The court had previously warned Williams that she needed to serve the defendants by October 16, 2020. That deadline passed without a response, proof of service, or an explanation showing good cause for the delay.
Judge Ramos dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns serving defendants within 90 days after filing a complaint. He also directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Williams v. GHD Professional, North America, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04560
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
Pamela Williams filed the complaint on June 15, 2020, bringing the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. She later filed an amended complaint on September 14, 2020. The court stated that the amended complaint did not restart the 90-day period for serving the defendants.
In an order dated September 16, 2020, the court noted that more than 90 days had passed without proof that Williams had served GHD Professional, North America, Inc. or Jemella Limited. The court ordered her to serve both defendants by October 16, 2020. That deadline passed without a response.
Rule and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a court, after notice to the plaintiff, to dismiss an action without prejudice against a defendant who has not been served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, or to order service within a specified time. The court also noted that Williams had not responded to its warning or provided good cause for the lack of service.
Ruling
Judge Ramos dismissed Williams’s action without prejudice for failure to complete service under Rule 4(m). The order directed the clerk to terminate any pending motions and close the case. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.