M.F. v. New York City Department of Education
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-01109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In M.F. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the attorneys’ fees case for untimely service after counsel’s misleading COVID-19 explanation.
M.F., as parent and natural guardian of K.C., a minor, and M.F. individually; the New York City Department of Education; and plaintiffs’ counsel, who was prohibited from seeking the fees at issue from the client.
What happened
M.F. v. New York City Department of Education concerned a complaint seeking attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiffs did not serve the summons and complaint within the required 90 days. After initially accepting counsel’s explanation that COVID-19-related restrictions caused the delay, the court learned that counsel’s firm had used the City’s email service portal in other cases during the same period.
Judge Engelmayer withdrew the finding of good cause, vacated the earlier extension order, and dismissed the case for failure to timely serve the defendant. He also prohibited plaintiffs’ counsel from seeking the fees involved in the case from the client.
The detailed version
- M.F. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:20-cv-01109
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 29, 2020
Background
M.F., as parent and natural guardian of K.C., a minor, and M.F. individually, filed a complaint seeking attorneys’ fees. The complaint was filed on February 7, 2020. Under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs were required to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days.
The plaintiffs did not timely serve the New York City Department of Education. The court issued an order requiring the plaintiffs to explain the failure. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Peter G. Albert, stated that COVID-19-related issues had caused the delay and that service on the Department of Education had been restricted.
Based on that representation, the court found good cause—an adequate legally recognized reason—for the late service and extended the service deadline to October 23, 2020. The Department of Education then informed the court that New York City had established an email portal for service around the week of March 22, 2020, and that Mr. Albert’s firm had used the portal in numerous other cases during the relevant period.
Court’s Analysis
Because the parties’ accounts conflicted, the court ordered Mr. Albert to submit a sworn declaration identifying his firm’s use of the email service portal since mid-March 2020 and explaining his earlier statement that service had been restricted. Mr. Albert’s declaration stated that counsel learned about the City’s changed service procedure on or about April 7, 2020, and had used the email portal for cases filed after April 1, 2020.
The court concluded that Mr. Albert’s earlier representations were misleading, at best, and appeared to be factually demonstrably false. The court therefore withdrew its finding that good cause justified the failure to timely serve process.
Disposition
The court vacated its earlier order at Docket 6 and dismissed the case for failure to effect timely service. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. To avoid prejudicing the plaintiffs because of their counsel’s dereliction, the court prohibited plaintiffs’ counsel from seeking from the client the fees sought in the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.