Velazquez v. Norma Kamali, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-06510
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velazquez v. Norma Kamali, Inc., Judge Cronan dismissed the case without prejudice because Defendant was not served on time.
Bryan Velazquez’s case against Norma Kamali, Inc.; the case was dismissed without prejudice because Defendant was not served within the required time.
What happened
In Velazquez v. Norma Kamali, Inc., Bryan Velazquez alleged that Norma Kamali, Inc. violated disability-discrimination laws. He did not serve the company within 90 days after filing the complaint.
Velazquez asked for 30 more days, explaining that the lawyers had discussed waiving service and that his lawyer lost track of the deadline after office closures and a vacation. The court found that these circumstances did not establish the required good cause.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. Judge John P. Cronan ruled that the failure to track the service deadline was attorney error, not an exceptional circumstance beyond Velazquez’s control.
The detailed version
- Velazquez v. Norma Kamali, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06510
- John Cronan
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
Bryan Velazquez sued Norma Kamali, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. He filed the complaint on August 1, 2022, but never served the Defendant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service 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. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the service deadline for an appropriate period.
Plaintiff’s Request
After the Court ordered Velazquez to show good cause, he filed a letter requesting an additional 30 days to complete service. He stated that his counsel and Defendant’s counsel had discussed waiving service, but those discussions ended on September 29, 2022 without an agreement. He also stated that his counsel’s office was closed in October for religious holidays and that counsel took an October vacation, causing counsel to lose track of the service deadline.
Court’s Analysis
The Court held that Velazquez had not shown good cause. It found that counsel’s failure to track the service deadline was not an exceptional circumstance beyond Velazquez’s control, regardless of the earlier discussions about service. The Court also relied on decisions holding that attorney error does not establish good cause under Rule 4(m).
Disposition
The Court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion did not reach the merits of the disability-discrimination claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.