Applied Research Investments, LLC v. Lin
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-07100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Applied Research Investments v. Lin, Judge Broderick ordered Plaintiff to explain its failure to serve Defendants or face possible dismissal.
Applied Research Investments, LLC, Mark Lin, and Alpha Lab Asset Management Inc.; the order imposes a deadline and warning on the plaintiff concerning service of process.
What happened
In Applied Research Investments, LLC v. Lin, the plaintiff sued Mark Lin and Alpha Lab Asset Management Inc. The opinion says the plaintiff filed the case on August 19, 2022, obtained a summons on August 22, and had not filed proof of service or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered the plaintiff to submit, by November 25, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The letter had to cite legal authority and show good cause—generally, exceptional circumstances outside the plaintiff’s control—for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. He warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Applied Research Investments, LLC v. Lin · No. 1:22-cv-07100
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
The opinion states that Applied Research Investments, LLC filed this action against Mark Lin and Alpha Lab Asset Management Inc. on August 19, 2022. The plaintiff obtained a summons on August 22, 2022. As of the date of the order, however, the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered the plaintiff to submit a letter no longer than three pages by November 25, 2022. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns timely service of process. The court explained that good cause is generally found only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve was caused by 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
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed 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.