Morris v. Hunter College
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-09632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Morris v. Hunter College, Judge Broderick ordered Morris to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve defendants.
Greggory W. Morris, Hunter College, and the City University of New York; the order required Morris to explain the failure to serve defendants and warned of possible dismissal.
What happened
In Morris v. Hunter College, Greggory W. Morris sued Hunter College and the City University of New York. He amended his complaint, and a lawyer later appeared for him, but he had not obtained a summons or filed proof that defendants were served.
The court ordered Morris to submit, by March 12, 2021, a legal letter of no more than three pages showing good cause for the failure to serve defendants within 90 days. The court warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on February 26, 2021. The order did not decide the merits of Morris's claims or dismiss the case at that time.
The detailed version
- Morris v. Hunter College · No. 1:20-cv-09632
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Greggory W. Morris filed the action against Hunter College and the City University of New York on November 11, 2020. He filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2020. Counsel appeared on his behalf on January 15, 2021.
The court stated that Morris had not obtained a summons, filed an affidavit of service, or taken other action to prosecute the case. Service means formally delivering the lawsuit papers to the defendants as required by law.
Order
The court ordered Morris to submit, no later than March 12, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns the deadline for serving defendants.
The court required Morris to demonstrate good cause for failing to serve defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The order explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also noted that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice to the defendant, and that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
The court warned that failing to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The order itself did not dismiss the case and did not address the merits of Morris's claims.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued an order requiring Morris to show cause—in other words, to explain why the case should remain pending—before the court would consider dismissal for failure to serve defendants. This was a procedural order, not a decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.