Ekpe v. Patel
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-09143
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ekpe v. Patel, Judge Broderick ordered Jimmy Ekpe to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve defendants.
Jimmy Ekpe, who was ordered to explain his failure to serve the defendants; the defendants, whose service remained unresolved.
What happened
In Ekpe v. Patel, Jimmy Ekpe sued Kamlesh Patel and others, including the City of New York and several city-related defendants. He tried to obtain summonses, but the requests were found deficient twice, and he had not corrected them or filed proof that defendants had been served.
The court ordered Ekpe to submit, by February 11, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why there was a legally sufficient reason for his failure to serve the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The letter had to cite legal authority.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that the case would be dismissed if Ekpe did not submit the letter and show sufficient reason for the delay. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Ekpe v. Patel · No. 1:20-cv-09143
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
On October 30, 2020, Jimmy Ekpe filed this action against Kamlesh Patel, the City of New York, the Department of Aging, Jack Rizzo, Caryn Resnick, and Sal Rullan. Ekpe attempted to obtain summonses, but the court notified him on January 14 and January 20 that his requests were deficient. The opinion states that he had not corrected the errors, filed an affidavit of service, or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Ekpe to submit, no later than February 11, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter had to demonstrate good cause—an adequate legal reason—for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving defendants within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure to serve process timely resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also identified the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice to defendants as relevant considerations, and stated that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause. Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal. The order did not itself dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.