Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-08319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH, Judge Broderick ordered Zoetis to explain its failure to serve Boehringer.
Zoetis, Inc., because it was required to explain its failure to serve Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH and was warned that the case would be dismissed if it failed to do so.
What happened
In Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH, Zoetis filed a lawsuit on October 8, 2021, and obtained a summons four days later. The opinion says Zoetis had not filed proof that Boehringer was served or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Zoetis to file, by January 20, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under the federal rule governing service of process. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and show a valid reason for the delay.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to file the letter and show a valid reason for not serving Boehringer within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH · No. 1:21-cv-08319
- Denise Cote
- Jan. 13, 2022
Background
Zoetis filed the action on October 8, 2021, and obtained a summons on October 12, 2021. The court stated that Zoetis had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Zoetis to submit, no later than January 20, 2022, 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 serving the defendant with the summons and complaint within the required period.
The order explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure to serve the defendant timely resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence and any prejudice to the defendant. The order cited decisions explaining that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, he ordered Zoetis to explain the failure to serve Boehringer and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendant within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.