De Jesus Reyes v. Benchmark Contracting Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07218
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In De Jesus Reyes v. Benchmark Contracting, Judge Furman dismissed the complaint against two unserved defendants and set procedures for a possible default judgment against Benchmark.
The complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to Alan Rafferty and Andrew Collins, who were not shown to have been served. Benchmark Contracting Inc. remained in the case subject to procedures concerning a possible default-judgment motion.
What happened
In De Jesus Reyes v. Benchmark Contracting Inc., the plaintiffs served Benchmark Contracting Inc. but did not serve individual defendants Alan Rafferty and Andrew Collins within the extended deadline. The court had previously ordered the plaintiffs to explain the delay and extended the service deadline to January 7, 2022.
The court dismissed the complaint against Rafferty and Collins without prejudice under the federal service deadline rule and directed the Clerk to terminate them as defendants. Because Benchmark had been served but had not answered or appeared, the court set deadlines for a possible motion for default judgment and scheduled a hearing if such a motion was filed.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also ordered the plaintiffs to serve Benchmark with the order and any default-judgment motion, and to file proof of that service. The order did not enter a default judgment or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- De Jesus Reyes v. Benchmark Contracting Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07218
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
The complaint was filed on August 27, 2021. On December 3, 2021, the court ordered the plaintiffs to show good cause for not serving the summons and complaint within the 90 days required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or to show when and how service had been completed. The plaintiffs filed proof of service for Benchmark Contracting Inc. and explained that they had been unable to serve Alan Rafferty and Andrew Collins. The court extended the service deadline for those two defendants to January 7, 2022.
Rulings
The plaintiffs did not file proof that Rafferty or Collins had been served. The court therefore dismissed the complaint as to those defendants without prejudice under Rule 4(m) and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate them as defendants.
Benchmark was served on December 1, 2021, but had not answered or otherwise appeared. The court ordered that any motion for default judgment against Benchmark be filed by February 1, 2022, with any opposition due by February 8, 2022. If a motion was filed, Benchmark was ordered to appear and show cause on February 17, 2022, why default judgment should not be entered. The court cautioned that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.
Additional Procedures
The plaintiffs were ordered to serve Benchmark with the order within one business day and to serve any default-judgment motion and supporting papers within one business day after filing. They also had to file proof of each service. If Benchmark appeared, opposed the motion, or sought additional time to respond, the scheduled conference would instead be treated as the initial pretrial conference, subject to the court’s specified pre-conference procedures.
The order did not enter default judgment against Benchmark and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.