Glover-Mott v. Herd
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-03146
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Glover-Mott v. Herd, Judge Broderick ordered the plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve the defendants.
The order directly affected Marilee C. Glover-Mott by requiring her to explain why she had not served Whitney Wolfe Herd and the other defendants. The defendants could be affected if the case were dismissed for failure to complete service.
What happened
In Glover-Mott v. Herd, Marilee C. Glover-Mott sued Whitney Wolfe Herd and other defendants, requested summonses, and has not filed proof that the defendants were served or taken other action to prosecute the case.
The court ordered Glover-Mott to submit, by July 22, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages explaining with legal support why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal.
The order did not dismiss the case. Judge Vernon S. Broderick instead gave Glover-Mott an opportunity to show that exceptional circumstances caused the service delay.
The detailed version
- Glover-Mott v. Herd · No. 1:22-cv-03146
- Denise Cote
- July 15, 2022
Background
Marilee C. Glover-Mott filed this action against Whitney Wolfe Herd and other defendants on April 15, 2022. She requested issuance of summonses on April 18, 2022. As of the date of the order, she had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Glover-Mott to submit, no later than July 22, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule generally requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
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. The court also identified the plaintiff's diligence in trying to complete service and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay as relevant considerations. It 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. Instead, it required Glover-Mott to explain the service failure and warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.