Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 23, 2023

Rivera-Franz v. 167 Avenue B Associates LLC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-02532
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rivera-Franz v. 167 Avenue B Associates, Judge Broderick ordered Plaintiff to show good cause for not serving Defendants before possible dismissal.

Who this affects

The order directly affects Plaintiff Annalisa Rivera-Franz, who must explain the failure to serve Defendants by July 7, 2023. Defendants 167 Avenue B Associates LLC and Hekate’s Hearth Corp. are affected because the case may be dismissed if Rivera-Franz does not comply and show good cause.

What happened

In Rivera-Franz v. 167 Avenue B Associates LLC and Hekate’s Hearth Corp., Annalisa Rivera-Franz sued the two defendants, but the opinion states that she had not filed proof of service or taken other action to move the case forward.

The court ordered Rivera-Franz to submit, by July 7, 2023, a legal letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal. The order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rivera-Franz v. 167 Avenue B Associates LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02532
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 23, 2023

Background

Annalisa Rivera-Franz filed the action against 167 Avenue B Associates LLC and Hekate’s Hearth Corp. on March 24, 2023. The opinion states that summonses were obtained on March 27, 2023. As of the order, Rivera-Franz had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.

Order

The court ordered Rivera-Franz to submit a letter of no more than three pages by July 7, 2023. The letter must be supported by legal authority and explain why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns timely service of the summons and complaint.

The court explained that “good cause” generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider a plaintiff’s diligent attempts to serve process and the prejudice to the defendants caused by delay. The opinion states that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he gave Rivera-Franz a deadline to show good cause and warned that 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. The order did not address the merits of the claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.