Alvarez v. New York City Department of Education
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-00255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alvarez v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Broderick ordered proof of service or good-cause explanation for certain defendants by January 11, 2021.
The order directly affects Evelyn Alvarez and the defendants who had not appeared: Brian Leavy DeVale, John and Jane Does 1–10, and XYZ Corp. 1–10. It requires Alvarez to address service of process and warns of dismissal against those defendants if she does not comply.
What happened
In Alvarez v. New York City Department of Education, Evelyn Alvarez filed this action and obtained summonses for all defendants. She had not filed proof showing that any defendant was served. The Department of Education appeared and moved to dismiss, while the other listed defendants had not responded or appeared.
The court ordered Alvarez to file proof by January 11, 2021, showing that she timely served Brian Leavy DeVale, the John and Jane Doe defendants, and the XYZ Corporation defendants. If she had not served them, she had to file a short letter explaining, with legal support, why there was a good reason for the delay.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to make the required filing and show good cause would result in dismissal of the action against those defendants. This order did not decide the Department of Education’s motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Alvarez v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:20-cv-00255
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 30, 2020
Background
The opinion states that Evelyn Alvarez filed the action on January 10, 2020, and obtained summonses for all defendants on January 13, 2020. As of the order, she had not filed an affidavit of service for any defendant. The New York City Department of Education appeared and moved to dismiss the complaint. Brian Leavy DeVale, the John and Jane Does 1–10, and XYZ Corp. 1–10 had not answered, responded, or otherwise appeared.
Order
The court ordered Alvarez, by January 11, 2021, to file an affidavit of service showing that she timely served Brian Leavy DeVale, the John and Jane Does 1–10, and XYZ Corp. 1–10. If service had not been completed, she instead had to submit a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, explaining why there was good cause for the failure to serve them.
The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice caused by the delay, and that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not establish good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the claims in this order. He warned that failure to submit the required filing and demonstrate good cause for not serving the specified defendants within ninety days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal of the action against those defendants. The order does not resolve the Department of Education’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.