Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-08474
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mitsui Sumitomo v. Yang Ming, Judge Broderick ordered proof of service or a good-cause explanation before possible dismissal against Yang Ming.
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company, Ltd. was required to provide proof of timely service on Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp. or explain why the action against Yang Ming should not be dismissed. Yang Ming faced possible dismissal if the plaintiff did not comply; Expeditors International had already filed an answer.
What happened
In Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp., the plaintiff sued Yang Ming and Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. Expeditors International answered, but Yang Ming did not. The plaintiff had not filed proof showing that either defendant was served or taken other steps to move the case forward.
The court ordered the plaintiff to file proof that it timely served Yang Ming by February 15, 2021. If service had not occurred, the plaintiff had to submit a legal letter of no more than three pages explaining why there was a good reason not to dismiss the case against Yang Ming under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to file the required proof or letter and show good cause for not serving Yang Ming within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal of the action against Yang Ming.
The detailed version
- Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-08474
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company, Ltd. filed the action on October 12, 2020, against Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp. and Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. The plaintiff obtained summonses for both defendants on October 13, 2020. Expeditors International filed an answer, but Yang Ming did not. The plaintiff had not filed an affidavit of service for either defendant or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff, by February 15, 2021, to file an affidavit showing that it timely served Yang Ming. If service had not been completed, the plaintiff instead had to file a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause why the action against Yang Ming should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court described good cause as generally requiring exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control and noted that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice caused by delay. The court also stated that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Warning and disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It warned that failure to file the required affidavit or letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving Yang Ming within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal of the action against Yang Ming. Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.