Rodriguez v. Massive Action, LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-02973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rodriguez v. Massive Action, Judge Broderick ordered Rodriguez to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve defendants.
Jose Rodriguez and the defendants named in the action, including Massive Action, LLC, RedBubble, Inc., TP Apparel, LLC, Zazzle, Inc., Etsy, Inc., Amazon.com, LLC, Shopify (USA), Inc., and Nordstrom, Inc.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. Massive Action, LLC, Jose Rodriguez sued Massive Action, LLC, and several other defendants. The court said Rodriguez had not filed proof that the defendants were served or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Rodriguez to submit, by July 22, 2021, a no-more-than-three-page letter supported by legal authority explaining why there was a legally sufficient reason for the failure to serve the defendants. The order cited the federal rule requiring service within 90 days after filing a complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show sufficient cause would result in dismissal of the case. The court did not dismiss the case in this order and directed the clerk to mail a copy to Rodriguez, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Massive Action, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-02973
- Vernon Broderick
- July 9, 2021
Background
On April 7, 2021, Jose Rodriguez filed this action against Massive Action, LLC, RedBubble, Inc., TP Apparel, LLC, Zazzle, Inc., Etsy, Inc., Amazon.com, LLC, Shopify (USA), Inc., and Nordstrom, Inc. A summons was issued the same day. The court stated that Rodriguez had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Rodriguez to submit, no later than July 22, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns timely service of the summons and complaint. The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve was caused by circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also noted that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that Rodriguez’s failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal of the action. The order itself did not dismiss the case. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Rodriguez, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.