Wang v. Mayorkas
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-11205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wang v. Mayorkas, Judge Broderick ordered Wang to show good cause for not serving defendants, warning that failure would result in dismissal.
Yao Wang, who must explain the service delay, and the defendants named in the action.
What happened
In Wang v. Mayorkas, Yao Wang filed the case on December 30, 2021, and obtained a summons on March 15, 2022. The court said Wang had not filed proof of service or taken other action to prosecute the case.
The court ordered Wang to submit, by April 7, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under the federal rule governing timely service of court papers. The letter had to include legal authority and show good cause, meaning exceptional circumstances beyond Wang's control caused the delay.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days would result in dismissal. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Mayorkas · No. 1:21-cv-11205
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Yao Wang filed this action against Alejandro Mayorkas and other defendants on December 30, 2021. Wang obtained a summons on March 15, 2022. The court stated that Wang had not filed an affidavit of service, which is a written statement confirming that legal papers were delivered to the defendants, or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Wang to submit a letter of no more than three pages by April 7, 2022. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally requires service of process within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only when exceptional circumstances beyond a plaintiff's control caused the failure to serve the defendants on time. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendants caused by the delay. The court noted that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition and effect
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it required Wang to explain the failure to serve the defendants and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order on March 31, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.