Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 29, 2020

Minisci v. Magna Hospitality Group

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-07982
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Minisci v. Magna Hospitality Group, Judge Broderick gave Minisci until January 5, 2021, to explain her failure to serve one defendant.

Who this affects

Melissa Minisci and Element By Westin Times Square. The order required Minisci to explain the lack of service and warned that Element By Westin Times Square could be dismissed from the action.

What happened

In Minisci v. Magna Hospitality Group, Melissa Minisci sued several defendants, including Element By Westin Times Square.

The court said Minisci had not filed proof that Element By Westin Times Square was served with the lawsuit. It ordered her to submit a letter by January 5, 2021, explaining why that defendant should not be dismissed for failure to serve it within the required time.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal of Element By Westin Times Square from the case. The order did not dismiss that defendant at that time.

The detailed version

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

Case
Minisci v. Magna Hospitality Group · No. 1:20-cv-07982
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Dec. 29, 2020

Background

On September 25, 2020, Melissa Minisci filed this action against Bridge Hotel Group, Element By Westin Times Square doing business as Element New York Times Square West, Mark Kulekci, and Magna Hospitality Group. She obtained a summons on September 30, 2020. The opinion states that she had not filed an affidavit of service for Element By Westin Times Square.

Order

The court ordered Minisci to submit, by January 5, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter had to show good cause—meaning a legally sufficient explanation—for why Element By Westin Times Square should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which governs timely service of process.

The order explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances beyond a plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in trying to complete service and any prejudice caused by the delay. The opinion cited authority stating that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not establish good cause.

Disposition

The court did not dismiss Element By Westin Times Square in this order. Instead, it warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving that defendant within ninety days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal of Element By Westin Times Square from the action. The order was signed by Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Judge.

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.