Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2021

Olsen v. Level 28 Nutridrip LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-09565
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Olsen v. Level 28 Nutridrip LLC, Judge Abrams dismissed Olsen’s ADA case without prejudice because he did not serve the complaint after an extension.

Who this affects

Thomas J. Olsen’s ADA action, brought individually and on behalf of other similarly situated people, was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not indicate that the court reached the underlying accessibility claim.

What happened

In Olsen v. Level 28 Nutridrip LLC, Thomas J. Olsen alleged that Level 28 Nutridrip LLC’s website was not fully accessible to blind or visually impaired people.

The docket did not show that Olsen served the complaint and summons within the required 90 days. After granting him extra time and ordering him to complete service by February 26, 2021, the court found that he neither served the papers nor requested another extension.

Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Olsen v. Level 28 Nutridrip LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09565
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Mar. 1, 2021

Background

Thomas J. Olsen brought the action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated people under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that Level 28 Nutridrip LLC’s website was not fully accessible to him and other blind or visually impaired people.

Service of Process

The docket did not show that Olsen served the complaint and summons. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after filing. On February 12, 2021, after that deadline had passed, the court gave Olsen additional time and ordered him to complete service and file proof of service by February 26, 2021. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

Olsen did not comply with that order and did not request another extension. The court stated that he had not shown good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for failing to serve the defendant within the time allowed by the rules and the court’s order.

Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The ruling was based on the failure to serve the defendant; the court did not decide whether the website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

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.