Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 1, 2020

Paguada v. Intirion Corporation

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-06963
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Paguada v. Intirion Corporation, Judge Broderick ordered Plaintiff to explain the failure to serve Defendant or face possible dismissal.

Who this affects

Josue Paguada was required to submit a letter by December 8, 2020, explaining the service delay and showing good cause; the court warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action.

What happened

In Paguada v. Intirion Corporation, Josue Paguada sued Intirion Corporation on August 27, 2020, and obtained a summons the next day.

The court said Paguada had not filed proof that Intirion was served or taken other action to move the case forward. It ordered him to submit, by December 8, 2020, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under the federal rule governing service of process.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause for the service delay would result in dismissal. The order did not dismiss the case at that time.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paguada v. Intirion Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-06963
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Dec. 1, 2020

Background

Josue Paguada filed this action against Intirion Corporation on August 27, 2020, and obtained a summons on August 28, 2020. The court stated that, as of December 1, Paguada had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.

Order to Show Cause

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the summons and complaint within a specified period. The court ordered Paguada to submit, no later than December 8, 2020, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, demonstrating good cause why the case should not be dismissed under that rule. The court explained that good cause is generally limited to exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence and any prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he directed Paguada to explain the failure to serve Intirion and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendant within ninety days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal.

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.