Charming Beats LLC v. Buzzfeed, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-02202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Charming Beats LLC v. Townsquare Media, Judge Abrams ordered Charming Beats to explain its failure to appear and serve defendants or face dismissal.
Charming Beats LLC and the six defendants remaining in the action: Townsquare Media, Inc., Group Nine Media, Inc., Good Worldwide, Inc., Davler Media Group, LLC, Open Culture LLC, and Culture Map LLC.
What happened
In Charming Beats LLC v. Townsquare Media, Inc., et al., Charming Beats LLC continued its lawsuit against six defendants after voluntarily dismissing Buzzfeed, Inc. from the case. The court had scheduled an initial conference, but no party appeared, and Charming Beats had not filed proof that it served the remaining defendants.
The court gave Charming Beats until June 24, 2022, to file a letter confirming that it intended to continue the lawsuit and explaining why it had not timely filed proof of service. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
Judge Ronnie Abrams warned that failing to file the letter would result in dismissal under either the rule governing timely service of process or the rule allowing dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Charming Beats LLC v. Buzzfeed, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02202
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 17, 2022
Background
Charming Beats LLC filed the action on March 17, 2022. It later filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its claims against Buzzfeed, Inc. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Buzzfeed was terminated from the action, which remained pending against Townsquare Media, Inc., Group Nine Media, Inc., Good Worldwide, Inc., Davler Media Group, LLC, Open Culture LLC, and Culture Map LLC.
The court had directed the parties to attend an initial pretrial conference on June 17, 2022. No party appeared. The court also stated that Charming Beats had not provided proof of service for the six remaining defendants.
Order
The court ordered Charming Beats, if it intended to continue the lawsuit, to file a letter by June 24, 2022, confirming that intention and explaining its failure to timely file proof of service. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns timely service, or Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order itself did not dismiss the action.
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order on June 17, 2022, in New York, New York.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.