Yan Luis v. Arcona, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-02951
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yan Luis v. Arcona, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered proof of service or a good-cause explanation by July 25, warning that the case could be dismissed.
Kevin Yan Luis must provide proof of service or establish good cause for the delay; the action against Arcona, Inc. may be dismissed if he does not do so.
What happened
In Yan Luis v. Arcona, Inc., Kevin Yan Luis filed an action against Arcona, Inc. Arcona’s attorney appeared, but the docket did not contain proof that Arcona had been served.
The court gave Yan Luis until July 25, 2023, to file proof of service or a short letter explaining, with legal support, why there was a good reason for the delay. The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
Judge Broderick warned that if Arcona had not been served and Yan Luis did not show good cause for failing to serve it within 90 days after filing the complaint, the action would be dismissed. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Yan Luis v. Arcona, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02951
- Vernon Broderick
- July 12, 2023
Background
Kevin Yan Luis filed this action against Arcona, Inc. on April 7, 2023, and obtained a summons on April 10, 2023. An attorney entered an appearance for Arcona on May 14, 2023. The court stated that Yan Luis had not filed an affidavit of service.
Order
The court ordered Yan Luis, by July 25, 2023, to do one of two things: file proof of service on the docket if Arcona had been served, or file a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause for failing to timely serve Arcona. The court referenced Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which addresses dismissal for failure to serve a defendant within the required period.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. The court further stated 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. Instead, he ordered Yan Luis to file proof of service or a good-cause explanation by the stated deadline. The court warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve Arcona within 90 days after the complaint was filed 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.