All-Ways Forwarding Int'l, Inc. v. M/V Ever Liberal
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-11071
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
All-Ways Forwarding v. M/V Ever Liberal: Judge Broderick ordered Plaintiff to explain its failure to serve Defendants or face dismissal.
All-Ways Forwarding Int’l, Inc. was ordered to explain its failure to serve the Defendants, including M/V Ever Liberal and the entities named in the complaint. The Defendants were affected by the potential dismissal but were not otherwise ruled against in this order.
What happened
In All-Ways Forwarding Int’l, Inc. v. M/V Ever Liberal, Plaintiff filed the case on December 27, 2021, and obtained a summons the next day. The court said Plaintiff had not filed proof of service or taken other steps to move the case forward.
The court ordered Plaintiff to submit, by April 5, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The letter had to be supported by legal authority and show good cause for not serving Defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. He warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- All-Ways Forwarding Int'l, Inc. v. M/V Ever Liberal · No. 1:21-cv-11071
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
All-Ways Forwarding Int’l, Inc. filed the action on December 27, 2021, against M/V Ever Liberal in rem, Evergreen Marine Corp. (Taiwan) Ltd., Evergreen Marine Corp. (Taiwan) Ltd. doing business as Evergreen Line, and Master International Logistics (China) Co., Ltd. Plaintiff obtained a summons on December 28, 2021. The court stated that Plaintiff had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Plaintiff to submit, no later than April 5, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving defendants within the required time. The court explained that good cause is generally limited to exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence and any prejudice caused by delay. It also 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. It warned that Plaintiff’s failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving Defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal. The opinion is signed by Vernon S. Broderick, although the supplied case metadata identifies Denise Cote as the judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.