Kreisler v. 227 East 56th Company LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-04503
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kreisler v. 227 East 56th Company LLC, Judge Broderick ordered Plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants.
Todd Kreisler was required to explain his failure to serve 227 East 56th Company LLC and 56th Street Restaurant LLC; the defendants could be affected by a later dismissal if he failed to show good cause.
What happened
In Kreisler v. 227 East 56th Company LLC, Todd Kreisler sued 227 East 56th Company LLC and 56th Street Restaurant LLC on June 1, 2022. He obtained summonses on June 3, but had not filed proof of service or taken other action to prosecute the case.
The court ordered Todd Kreisler to file, by September 13, 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 required him to show good cause—generally, exceptional circumstances beyond his control—for not serving the defendants within 90 days.
Judge Broderick warned that failing to file the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Kreisler v. 227 East 56th Company LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04503
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 6, 2022
Background
Todd Kreisler filed this action against 227 East 56th Company LLC and 56th Street Restaurant LLC on June 1, 2022. He obtained summonses on June 3, 2022. As of the order, however, he had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Kreisler to submit, no later than September 13, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, demonstrating good cause why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving defendants within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The court explained that good cause is generally found only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also identified the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice to the defendants as relevant considerations, and stated that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he ordered Kreisler to explain why dismissal should not occur and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days would result in dismissal of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.