Gumaneh v. Vilano Employment Services, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00774
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gumaneh v. Vilano Employment Services, Judge Broderick ordered plaintiffs to explain their failure to serve defendants or face dismissal.
The plaintiffs, who were ordered to explain the lack of service, and the defendants, who had not yet been shown to have been served.
What happened
In Gumaneh v. Vilano Employment Services, Inc., the plaintiffs sued Vilano Employment Services, Inc. and Postal Fleet Services, Inc. The opinion states that the plaintiffs obtained a summons but had not filed proof of service or taken other action to prosecute the case.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit, by May 6, 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 plaintiffs had to support the letter with legal authority and show good cause—generally, exceptional circumstances beyond their control—for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Gumaneh v. Vilano Employment Services, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00774
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
On January 28, 2022, the plaintiffs filed this action against Vilano Employment Services, Inc. and Postal Fleet Services, Inc. The plaintiffs obtained a summons on January 31, 2022. According to the order, they had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case as of April 29, 2022.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit, no later than May 6, 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 the time for serving defendants with the summons and complaint.
The order explained that good cause is generally found only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve process on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence in attempting proper service and any prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. The order further stated that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal of the action. The order itself required a response and did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.