Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 12, 2022

Yan Luis v. Visionworks of America, Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:22-cv-04651
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Yan Luis v. Visionworks, Judge Cronan dismissed the case without prejudice because Yan Luis did not serve Visionworks within 90 days.

Who this affects

The dismissal affected Kevin Yan Luis's case against Visionworks of America, Inc.; the case was closed without prejudice because service was not completed and the required explanation was not filed.

What happened

In Yan Luis v. Visionworks of America, Inc., Kevin Yan Luis filed a complaint on June 3, 2022, but the docket showed that Visionworks was never served.

The court gave Yan Luis until September 27, 2022, to explain why service was not completed within 90 days or the case would be dismissed. Yan Luis did not file the required letter.

Judge Cronan dismissed the case without prejudice under the federal service rule and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Yan Luis v. Visionworks of America, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04651
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Oct. 12, 2022

Background

Kevin Yan Luis filed the complaint on June 3, 2022. The docket showed that the complaint was never served on Visionworks of America, Inc.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of a defendant within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order service within a specified time, after giving the plaintiff notice.

On September 20, 2022, the court directed Yan Luis to file a letter by September 27 explaining why service had not been completed within 90 days and showing good cause. The court warned that it would dismiss the case if he did not file the letter. He did not file it.

Ruling

The court dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 4(m). “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. Judge John P. Cronan issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.