Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-07284
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Judge Broderick ordered plaintiffs to explain their failure to serve defendant or face dismissal.
Fabio Guidetti and Victoria Grantham must explain the failure to serve American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida by December 8, 2022, or the action will be dismissed.
What happened
In Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Fabio Guidetti and Victoria Grantham sued American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida. They obtained a summons, but the court had received no proof that the defendant was served and saw no other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit, by December 8, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed. The letter had to support the plaintiffs’ explanation with legal authority and show a legally sufficient reason for the delay.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show a sufficient reason for not serving the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida · No. 1:22-cv-07284
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 30, 2022
Background
Fabio Guidetti and Victoria Grantham filed this action against American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida on August 25, 2022. They obtained a summons on September 8, 2022. The opinion states that, as of the date of the order, the plaintiffs had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit a letter of no more than three pages by December 8, 2022. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause—meaning a legally sufficient reason—for why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving the defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and may involve the plaintiff’s diligence and any prejudice to the defendant from the delay.
Ruling and effect
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for the failure to serve the defendant within the required period would result in dismissal of the action. The order itself did not dismiss the case or state that the plaintiffs had demonstrated good cause.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.