Donohue v. Fudge
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-02474
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Donohue v. Fudge, Judge Broderick ordered Plaintiff to explain by July 13 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants.
The order directly affects Plaintiff, who must submit the required letter and show good cause for the failure to serve Defendant. The Defendants are affected because the court is considering whether the action should be dismissed for lack of timely service.
What happened
In Donohue v. Fudge, Plaintiff filed the case on March 23, 2023, but had not obtained a summons, filed proof of service, or otherwise acted to prosecute the case.
The court ordered Plaintiff to submit, by July 13, 2023, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why there was good cause for not serving the Defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The court said that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he gave Plaintiff a deadline to show good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
The detailed version
- Donohue v. Fudge · No. 1:23-cv-02474
- Vernon Broderick
- June 30, 2023
Background
Plaintiff filed this action on March 23, 2023. The opinion states that Plaintiff had not obtained a summons, filed an affidavit of service, or taken any other action to prosecute the case. A footnote adds that Plaintiff's counsel contacted chambers in mid-June and said he intended to request more time to serve the complaint, but no such request had been made and no action had been taken since March 24, 2023.
Order
The court ordered Plaintiff to submit, no later than July 13, 2023, a letter of no more than three pages supported by legal authority. The letter must demonstrate good cause for failing to serve Defendant within 90 days after the complaint was filed, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in 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 caused to the defendant by the delay. The opinion says that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the action in this order. He ordered Plaintiff to provide the required letter and warned that failure to submit it and demonstrate good cause 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.