Ruiz Florez v. 14 L. Pierre Associates, LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-09549
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Ruiz Florez v. 14 L. Pierre Associates: Judge Broderick ordered a letter explaining delayed service before possible dismissal.
The order directly affected Carlos Ruiz Florez by requiring him to explain the failure to serve 14 L. Pierre Associates, LLC and MCD Hospitality LLC within 90 days and warning that the case would be dismissed if he failed to do so.
What happened
In Ruiz Florez v. 14 L. Pierre Associates, LLC, Carlos Ruiz Florez filed the case on November 18, 2021, and obtained summonses the next day. The opinion says he had not filed proof of service or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Ruiz Florez to submit, by March 4, 2022, a legal letter of no more than three pages showing good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days. The court warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal, but this order did not itself dismiss the case.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on February 18, 2022. He explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and that attorney carelessness or mistakes generally do not qualify.
The detailed version
- Ruiz Florez v. 14 L. Pierre Associates, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09549
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
Carlos Ruiz Florez filed this action on November 18, 2021. He obtained summonses for the defendants on November 19, 2021. The court stated that, as of the date of the order, Ruiz Florez had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Ruiz Florez to submit, no later than March 4, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns the time for serving defendants with the summons and complaint.
The court stated that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve process on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also identified the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting proper service and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay as relevant considerations. The court further stated that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it ordered Ruiz Florez to explain the delay and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal of the action. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.