Clarke v. Security King International LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-05082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Clarke v. Security King, Judge Cronan dismissed the case without prejudice against two unserved defendants because Clarke failed to show good cause for late service.
Roy Clarke and the unserved defendants, Bee Amato and Akiva “Doe.” The order removed Amato and Doe from the case; it did not dismiss Security King International LLC.
What happened
In Clarke v. Security King International LLC, Roy Clarke sued under federal and state wage laws. He served Security King International LLC but did not serve Bee Amato or Akiva “Doe,” who were also named as defendants.
The court required Clarke to explain why he had not served those two defendants within the required 90-day period. Clarke said he was trying to identify Akiva “Doe” and expected to identify and serve both individuals later, but he did not provide details about those efforts or explain why identifying one defendant was necessary to serve the other.
Judge John P. Cronan found that Clarke had not shown a legally sufficient reason for the delay. The court dismissed the case without prejudice as to Bee Amato and Akiva “Doe” and directed the clerk to terminate them from the action.
The detailed version
- Clarke v. Security King International LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05082
- John Cronan
- Oct. 4, 2022
Background
Roy Clarke sued Security King International LLC, Bee Amato, and Akiva “Doe” over alleged violations of federal and state wage laws. Clarke served Security King International LLC on July 12, 2022, but did not serve Amato or Doe.
On September 20, 2022, the court ordered Clarke to show good cause for not serving the individual defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Clarke responded that he had attempted to identify Akiva “Doe” before serving the individual defendants and believed he could identify and serve both by October 28, 2022.
Rule and Analysis
Rule 4(m) requires a court, after notice to the plaintiff, to dismiss an action without prejudice against a defendant who is not served within 90 days or order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause, the court must extend the service deadline for an appropriate period. The plaintiff has the burden of showing good cause, which requires evidence that diligent efforts were unsuccessful because of exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
The court found that Clarke had not met that burden. His letter did not identify any exceptional circumstance that prevented timely service. He also provided no details about his attempt to identify Akiva “Doe” and did not explain why he needed to identify Doe before serving Amato.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan dismissed this case without prejudice as to the individual defendants, Bee Amato and Akiva “Doe.” The clerk was directed to terminate Amato and Doe from the action. The order did not dismiss Security King International LLC.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.