Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc.
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-01670
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered Phil Neuman to explain why his case should not be dismissed.
Phil Neuman, Global Security Solutions, Inc., and Werner Hellmann; the order required Neuman to address the failure to serve the defendants and warned that the case would be dismissed if he failed to show good cause.
What happened
In Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc., Phil Neuman sued Global Security Solutions, Inc. and Werner Hellmann on February 25, 2021. He obtained summonses, but had not filed proof of service or taken another action to prosecute the case by May 28, 2021.
The court ordered Neuman to submit, by June 4, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why there was good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The letter had to include legal authority.
Judge Broderick warned that if Neuman did not submit the letter and show good cause, the court would dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01670
- Denise Cote
- May 28, 2021
Background
Phil Neuman filed the action against Global Security Solutions, Inc. and Werner Hellmann on February 25, 2021. He obtained summonses for both defendants on February 26, 2021. As of the date of the order, Neuman had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered Neuman to submit, no later than June 4, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter had to demonstrate good cause for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns serving defendants within 90 days after a complaint is filed.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances when the failure to serve resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It identified the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay as relevant considerations. The court also stated that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he required Neuman to explain why dismissal should not occur and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.