Carlisle v. USA Truck, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-07335
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Carlisle v. USA Truck, Judge Broderick ordered Carlisle to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve defendants.
The order directly affects Sam Carlisle, who must explain the failure to serve the defendants, and the named defendants, whose potential dismissal-related consequences depend on whether Carlisle shows good cause.
What happened
In Carlisle v. USA Truck, Inc., Sam Carlisle sued USA Truck, Inc. and several individual defendants on August 25, 2022. The opinion says Carlisle had not filed proof that the defendants were served or taken any other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Carlisle to submit, by December 8, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages explaining, with legal support, why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days would result in dismissal. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Carlisle v. USA Truck, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07335
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 30, 2022
Background
Sam Carlisle filed this action against USA Truck, Inc.; James D. Reed; M. Susan Chambers; Robert E. Creager; Gary R. Enzor; Barbara J. Faulkenberry; Alexander D. Greene; and Rajan C. Penkar on August 25, 2022. The court stated that Carlisle had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Carlisle to submit a letter by December 8, 2022. The letter could be no more than three pages and had to be supported by legal authority explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving defendants with the summons and complaint within the required period.
The court described good cause as generally requiring exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve process on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendants caused by the delay. The order said that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition and warning
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that Carlisle’s failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint 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.