Hernandez v. Pramer
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-02608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez v. Pramer, Judge Cronan granted Hernandez more time to serve Pramer, despite finding no good cause under Rule 4(m).
Mariela Hernandez received additional time to serve Patricia Pramer. The order affected the service deadline in the case; it did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Pramer, Mariela Hernandez asked for more time to serve Patricia Pramer with the lawsuit. Hernandez’s process servers had unsuccessfully tried one address, and a later attempt at an updated address was still being completed.
Hernandez asked to extend the service deadline through August 12, 2023. She pointed to the earlier service attempt, the updated summons, and the efforts to serve Pramer at the new address.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request. He found that Hernandez had not shown the required good cause under Rule 4(m), but he used his discretion to extend the time for service through August 12, 2023.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Pramer · No. 1:23-cv-02608
- John Cronan
- July 13, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Mariela Hernandez, through counsel, requested an extension of the deadline to serve Defendant Patricia Pramer, also identified in the filing as Patricia Machado Pramer. The request sought additional time, through August 12, 2023, to complete service and file proof of service.
Hernandez stated that process servers had tried unsuccessfully to serve Pramer at 360 East 64th Street in New York on or around April 12, 2023. On June 1, Hernandez requested an amended summons listing 340 East 64th Street as Pramer’s updated address. The Clerk issued the amended summons on June 2. Hernandez then directed the process servers to try service at the updated address, but service was still being finalized when the request was filed.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed by then, the court must dismiss the action against the unserved defendant without prejudice or order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the delay, the court must extend the deadline. Even without good cause, the court may use its discretion to grant an extension.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan granted Hernandez’s request. The court stated that it did not find good cause under Rule 4(m) to extend the service period, but it extended the time in its discretion, retroactively, through August 12, 2023. The opinion does not state whether service was ultimately completed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.