Ortiz v. 5 Star Valet LLC

Background

Jaime Ortiz brought this proposed collective action against 5 Star Valet LLC, Brian “Doe,” and John “Doe.” The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act. The opinion states that Ortiz was employed by 5 Star Valet during two periods between July 2021 and July 2022.

The complaint was filed on August 12, 2022. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), defendants generally must be served within 90 days after a complaint is filed. That period ended on November 10, 2022. As of November 16, the docket did not show that any defendant had been served, and Ortiz had not requested more time.

The court ordered Ortiz to explain why the case should not be dismissed. Ortiz’s counsel then requested an extension through December 22, 2022, and permission to file an amended complaint. Counsel said that service on the individual defendant originally identified as Brian “Doe” had been unsuccessful and that Ortiz had only recently identified the name and address of the corporate defendant’s principal, Bryan Lopez. The response did not describe specific efforts to serve any defendant or explain why Ortiz had not sought an extension before the deadline expired.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Ortiz had not shown “good cause”—a legally sufficient reason—for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days. As to 5 Star Valet, the complaint and summons identified the company’s principal business address, so the court found that Ortiz had not shown why timely service on the company was not possible.

As to Brian “Doe” and John “Doe,” the court found that Ortiz had not shown diligence in identifying or serving them. The response did not describe efforts to identify Brian “Doe” before the court’s order to show cause, gave no information about efforts to identify John “Doe,” and did not explain why Ortiz had not requested additional time to identify, name, and serve them.

Rule 4(m) permits a court to extend the service deadline even without good cause, but does not require such an extension. The court considered the apparent absence of a limitations-bar problem, the lack of information about defendants’ notice or possible prejudice, and Ortiz’s failure to provide a colorable explanation for the delay. It concluded that a discretionary extension was unwarranted.

Disposition

The court declined to extend Ortiz’s deadline to serve the defendants. Because Ortiz had not shown good cause for the failure to make timely service, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 4(m). It directed Ortiz to serve a copy of the order on all defendants and retain proof of service, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.