Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 4, 2020

Guglielmo v. Takeya USA Corporation

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-05575
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Guglielmo v. Takeya, Judge Broderick dismissed the claims without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to timely serve Takeya or show good cause.

Who this affects

Joseph Guglielmo’s claims against Takeya USA Corporation were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Guglielmo v. Takeya USA Corporation, Joseph Guglielmo brought claims against Takeya USA Corporation on behalf of himself and others. The court said Guglielmo obtained a summons but did not file proof of service or otherwise pursue the case.

The court ordered Guglielmo to show that Takeya had been timely served or explain why there was a valid reason to extend the service deadline. Guglielmo did not comply with that order and did not show a valid reason for an extension.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed Guglielmo’s claims against Takeya under the federal service rule, Rule 4(m), without prejudice, and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guglielmo v. Takeya USA Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-05575
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Nov. 4, 2020

Background

Joseph Guglielmo filed this action against Takeya USA Corporation on July 20, 2020, and obtained a summons on July 21, 2020. The opinion states that Guglielmo did not file an affidavit of service or take any other action to prosecute the case.

Service Deadline

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If service is not timely, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve the defendant, the court must extend the service period. The court described good cause as generally requiring exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.

On October 27, 2020, the court ordered Guglielmo to file proof that Takeya had been timely served or submit a short, legally supported explanation showing good cause for extending the service deadline. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Guglielmo did not comply and did not demonstrate good cause for extending the deadline.

Ruling

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that Guglielmo’s claims against Takeya USA Corporation be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The clerk was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.