Guglielmo v. Assouline, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-05921
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guglielmo v. Assouline, Inc., Judge Broderick dismissed the claims without prejudice because service was late and no good cause was shown.
Joseph Guglielmo’s claims against Assouline, Inc. and Assouline Publishing, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Guglielmo v. Assouline, Inc., Joseph Guglielmo filed a lawsuit against Assouline, Inc. and later added Assouline Publishing, Inc. The court said service on the defendants was overdue.
The court had ordered Guglielmo to explain why the case should not be dismissed under the service rule, but he did not respond. He also did not show a legally sufficient reason to extend the deadline for serving the defendants.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed Guglielmo’s claims against both defendants without prejudice under Rule 4(m) and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Guglielmo v. Assouline, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05921
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 25, 2021
Background
Joseph Guglielmo filed the action against Assouline, Inc. on July 30, 2020, and obtained a summons for that defendant the next day. On October 7, 2020, he filed an amended complaint naming Assouline, Inc. and Assouline Publishing, Inc., and obtained a summons for Assouline Publishing, Inc. on October 8, 2020.
The court stated that Guglielmo had not filed affidavits showing service or taken other action to prosecute the case. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a defendant generally must be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If the plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve the defendant, the court must extend the service deadline for an appropriate period. The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
Court’s Order
On January 11, 2021, the court ordered Guglielmo to submit a letter of no more than three pages explaining, with legal authority, why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m). The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Guglielmo did not comply with that order and did not show good cause for extending the service deadline.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that Guglielmo’s claims against Assouline, Inc. and Assouline Publishing, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.