Horizon Group USA, Inc. v. Innovative Designs, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01241
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Horizon Group USA v. Innovative Designs, Judge Cronan dismissed the case without prejudice because Horizon did not serve Innovative Designs or show good cause.
Horizon Group USA, Inc.'s action against Innovative Designs, LLC was dismissed without prejudice because Horizon did not serve the complaint or show good cause for failing to do so.
What happened
Horizon Group USA, Inc. sued Innovative Designs, LLC, but the complaint was never served on the defendant. The complaint was filed on February 14, 2022.
The court gave Horizon a deadline to explain why service had not been made or to provide proof that service had occurred. Horizon filed neither the required explanation showing good cause nor proof of service.
Judge Cronan dismissed the case without prejudice under the federal service-of-process rule and directed the Clerk to close the case and enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Horizon Group USA, Inc. v. Innovative Designs, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01241
- John Cronan
- July 29, 2022
Background
Horizon Group USA, Inc. filed its complaint against Innovative Designs, LLC on February 14, 2022. The docket showed that Horizon had not served the complaint on Innovative Designs.
Applicable Rule
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service within the specified period after a complaint is filed. If service is not made, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order service within a specified time, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure. Before dismissing on its own, the court must give the plaintiff notice and an opportunity to explain the failure.
Court’s Action
On May 24, 2022, the court ordered Horizon to explain by May 31 why it had not served the summons and complaint or, if service had occurred, to state when and how it was made. The court warned that it would dismiss the case if Horizon did not provide a letter showing good cause. Horizon did not file the required letter and did not file proof of service.
Because Horizon did not show good cause for failing to comply with Rule 4(m), the court dismissed the case without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.