Peters Gallery of New York, Inc v. Successors-in-Interest to Eberstadt & Sons
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-03181
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Peters Gallery v. Successors-in-Interest to Eberstadt & Sons, Judge Oetken ordered an explanation for delayed service and warned the case could be dismissed.
Peters Gallery of New York, Inc. must address the status or timing of service on the defendants. The defendants are affected because the case may be dismissed if the court does not receive the required written communication.
What happened
Peters Gallery of New York, Inc. sued Successors-in-Interest to Eberstadt & Sons and others. The case was filed on April 17, 2023, but the order does not establish whether the defendants were served.
The court explained that defendants generally must receive the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing. It directed Peters Gallery to explain the delay or provide details about any service by August 9, 2023.
Judge J. Paul Oetken warned that the court would dismiss the case if it received no written communication showing good cause for the delay. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Peters Gallery of New York, Inc v. Successors-in-Interest to Eberstadt & Sons · No. 1:23-cv-03181
- James Oetken
- July 26, 2023
Background
Peters Gallery of New York, Inc., doing business as Gerald Peters Gallery, filed this action on April 17, 2023. The order does not determine whether Peters Gallery served the summons and complaint on the defendants.
Rule and Court’s Direction
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a defendant to be served with the summons and complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court also explained that filing an amended complaint does not restart that 90-day service period.
The court directed Peters Gallery to submit a written explanation stating either why it had not served the defendants within 90 days or, if service had occurred, when and how service was made. The written communication had to be received by August 9, 2023, and show good cause for any failure to serve within the required period.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Peters Gallery to provide the requested information and warned that it would dismiss the case if no timely written communication showing good cause was received.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.