Morales v. Northern Shore International, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-05754
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Morales v. Northern Shore International, Judge Cronan ordered more information before potentially dismissing claims against two unserved defendants.
The plaintiffs, including Juan Morales, must explain their service efforts by October 31, 2022. The order directly concerns Dwayne Griffith and Ge’velle Marie, who had not been served; Northern Shore International, Inc. had been served.
What happened
In Morales v. Northern Shore International, Inc., the plaintiffs sued over alleged violations of federal and state wage laws. They served Northern Shore International, Inc., but did not serve Dwayne Griffith or Ge’velle Marie within the required 90-day period.
The plaintiffs asked for more time, saying process servers had tried the defendants’ business address and that their law firm was searching for personal addresses. The court found that the request did not explain the specific efforts made or show an exceptional reason preventing timely service.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the plaintiffs to explain by October 31, 2022, what steps they took to serve Griffith and Marie by October 5. The court did not dismiss the claims at this stage, but said that failing to provide the explanation would result in dismissal of those claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Morales v. Northern Shore International, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05754
- John Cronan
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Juan Morales and other plaintiffs brought this action alleging that the defendants failed to comply with federal and state wage laws. The plaintiffs served Northern Shore International, Inc. on July 21, 2022, but did not serve Dwayne Griffith or Ge’velle Marie, identified in the order as the Individual Defendants.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If service is not completed, the court must dismiss the action against the unserved defendant without prejudice or order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause, the court must extend the service period for an appropriate time. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing good cause, which requires demonstrating that diligent efforts could not overcome exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
The Plaintiffs’ Request
The court had previously ordered the plaintiffs to show good cause for not serving the Individual Defendants by October 5, 2022. The plaintiffs then requested an extension until November 18, 2022. They stated generally that process servers had unsuccessfully tried to serve the Individual Defendants at their business address and that their law firm was locating the defendants’ personal residences.
The plaintiffs also requested permission to serve the Individual Defendants through social media. The court did not resolve that request and noted that it was unclear whether such service would be allowed under New York law. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not provided authorities supporting social-media service, apart from a general citation to a New York statute.
Ruling
The court held that the plaintiffs’ letter did not establish good cause under Rule 4(m). The letter did not identify the exceptional circumstance that prevented timely service or provide details about the plaintiffs’ prior service attempts.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the plaintiffs to submit, by October 31, 2022, an explanation of the measures they took to serve the Individual Defendants by October 5, 2022. The court stated that failure to make that submission would result in dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against the Individual Defendants without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not dismiss those claims immediately and did not decide the underlying wage-law allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.