Shanahan v. Kijakazi
- Ona Wang
- 1:21-cv-06795
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shanahan v. Kijakazi, Judge Wang granted more time to serve the Commissioner and required proof by November 30, 2021.
The plaintiff, Shanahan, received additional time to serve the Commissioner of Social Security; the order also set compliance deadlines for the parties.
What happened
In Shanahan v. Kijakazi, the plaintiff’s attorney told the court that the summons and complaint had not been served, despite mistakenly recording that service had occurred. The attorney said service was being made by certified mail and asked for additional time under Rule 4(m).\n\nThe court granted the request for additional time under its discretion and directed the plaintiff to file proof of service electronically by November 30, 2021. The order did not decide the underlying Social Security dispute.\n\nJudge Ona Wang’s order also directed the parties to comply with the court’s November 16, 2021 order by December 30, 2021.
The detailed version
- Shanahan v. Kijakazi · No. 1:21-cv-06795
- Ona Wang
- Nov. 19, 2021
Background
The plaintiff’s attorney reported that the summons and complaint had not been served on the Commissioner of Social Security. The attorney explained that the complaint was filed on August 12, 2021, the Clerk issued the summons on August 13, 2021, and the attorney had mistakenly recorded that service occurred in September. The attorney stated that service was being made by certified mail and requested additional time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Request and governing rule
Rule 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days. If service is not completed, the court must either dismiss the action without prejudice as to the unserved defendant or order service within a specified time. The rule requires an extension when the plaintiff shows good cause and permits an extension, in the court’s discretion, even without good cause.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiff’s request for additional time to complete service under its discretion under Rule 4(m). It directed the plaintiff to file proof of service on the electronic docket by November 30, 2021. The parties were also directed to comply with the court’s November 16, 2021 order by December 30, 2021. Judge Ona Wang’s order did not address the merits of the underlying Social Security dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.