Maddy v. DanceFit Interactive LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-04643
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maddy v. DanceFit Interactive, Judge Broderick ordered a response explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendant.
Veronica Maddy must explain why she did not timely serve DanceFit Interactive LLC d/b/a Body Wrappers; the case could be dismissed if she does not comply and show good cause.
What happened
In Maddy v. DanceFit Interactive LLC d/b/a Body Wrappers, Veronica Maddy filed a lawsuit against DanceFit Interactive LLC and obtained a summons, but the record did not show that she had filed proof of service or taken other steps to prosecute the case.
The court ordered Maddy to submit, by September 13, 2022, a legal letter of no more than three pages explaining 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 DanceFit within 90 days would result in dismissal.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order; he directed Maddy to explain the failure to serve DanceFit and warned of possible dismissal.
The detailed version
- Maddy v. DanceFit Interactive LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04643
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 6, 2022
Background
Veronica Maddy filed this action against DanceFit Interactive LLC d/b/a Body Wrappers on June 3, 2022. She obtained a summons on June 6, 2022. The opinion states that, as of the order, Maddy had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Maddy to submit, by September 13, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter had to demonstrate good cause—an adequate explanation—for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns timely service of process.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure to serve the defendant on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendant caused by delay. The court noted that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Maddy to submit the required letter and warned that failure to do so, or failure to demonstrate good cause for not serving DanceFit within 90 days after the complaint was filed, would result in dismissal of the action. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.