Carlisle v. Metromile, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-00404
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Carlisle v. Metromile, Judge Broderick ordered Carlisle to explain by April 27 why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve defendants.
Sam Carlisle and the defendants named in the action: Metromile, Inc., Dan Preston, John Butler, Colin Bryant, Sandra Clarke, Ryan Graves, and Vikas Singhal.
What happened
In Carlisle v. Metromile, Sam Carlisle sued Metromile, Inc. and several other defendants. The opinion says Carlisle had not obtained a summons, filed proof of service, or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Carlisle to file a legal letter of no more than three pages by April 27, 2022, explaining why the case should not be dismissed because the defendants were not served within 90 days after the complaint was filed. The court warned that failing to file the letter and show a legally sufficient reason would result in dismissal.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he gave Carlisle an opportunity to show good cause—an exceptional reason outside Carlisle’s control—for the failure to serve the defendants.
The detailed version
- Carlisle v. Metromile, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00404
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 20, 2022
Background
Sam Carlisle filed this action against Metromile, Inc., Dan Preston, John Butler, Colin Bryant, Sandra Clarke, Ryan Graves, and Vikas Singhal. The opinion states that, as of the order, Carlisle had not obtained a summons, filed an affidavit showing service, or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Rule and Analysis
The court invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns serving defendants within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure to serve process timely resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay. The order further explained that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Order
The court ordered Carlisle to submit, by April 27, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, demonstrating good cause why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m). The court warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.