Schmidt v. United States Postal Service
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-03003
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Schmidt v. United States Postal Service, Judge Broderick ordered Schmidt to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of service.
The order directly affected Joel Schmidt's case against the United States Postal Service by requiring him to explain the failure to serve the defendant and warning that the action would be dismissed if he failed to do so.
What happened
In Schmidt v. United States Postal Service, Joel Schmidt sued the Postal Service and later filed an amended complaint. The court said he had not filed proof that the Postal Service was served or taken other action to move the case forward.
Judge Broderick ordered Schmidt to submit, by January 11, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why there was good cause for the failure to serve the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint. The letter had to include legal support.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that if Schmidt did not submit the letter and show good cause, the court would dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Schmidt v. United States Postal Service · No. 1:20-cv-03003
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 4, 2021
Background
Joel Schmidt, acting as the father and natural guardian of Benjamin A. Schmidt, a minor, filed this action against the United States Postal Service on April 14, 2020. Schmidt filed a First Amended Complaint on September 25, 2020, and obtained a summons on September 28, 2020.
The court stated that Schmidt had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case. An affidavit of service is a document showing that the defendant was formally served with the lawsuit.
Order
The court ordered Schmidt to submit, no later than January 11, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns the deadline for serving a defendant with the complaint and summons.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure to serve on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence in trying to complete service and any prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. The order stated that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he ordered Schmidt to explain why dismissal should not occur and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the Postal Service within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.