Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2021

Monegro v. Telebrands Corp.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-08555
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Monegro v. Telebrands Corp., Judge Broderick ordered Plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendant.

Who this affects

The order affects Frankie Monegro, who must explain the failure to serve Telebrands Corp.; the court warned that the action would be dismissed if he failed to comply and show good cause.

What happened

Monegro v. Telebrands Corp. concerns an action Frankie Monegro filed against Telebrands Corp. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.

The court said Monegro had obtained a summons but had not filed proof of service or taken other steps to prosecute the case. It ordered him to submit a letter of no more than three pages by January 26, 2021, showing good cause for the failure to serve Telebrands within 90 days.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The order itself did not dismiss the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Monegro v. Telebrands Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-08555
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Jan. 19, 2021

Background

Frankie Monegro filed this action against Telebrands Corp. on October 14, 2020, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. He obtained a summons on October 15, 2020. The court stated that, by January 19, 2021, Monegro had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.

Order

The court ordered Monegro to submit, by January 26, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter had to demonstrate good cause—meaning a sufficient reason—for failing to serve Telebrands within 90 days after the complaint was filed, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

The court explained that good cause is generally limited to exceptional 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 court noted that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Monegro to submit the letter and warned that failure to do so, or failure to demonstrate good cause, would result in dismissal of the action. The order did not itself dismiss the action.

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.