Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 27, 2023

Wong v. Jounce Therapeutics, Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:23-cv-03044
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wong v. Jounce Therapeutics, Inc., Judge Cronan ordered Wong to file a status letter about service and the delay.

Who this affects

Masie Wong and the defendants, including Jounce Therapeutics, Inc.; the order required Wong to address service of process and warned that the case could be dismissed if she did not respond.

What happened

Wong v. Jounce Therapeutics, Inc. began when Wong filed a complaint on April 11, 2022. The defendants had not appeared, and the docket did not show whether they had been served.

Judge Cronan ordered Wong to file a letter by August 3, 2023, stating whether the defendants had been served and, if not, why there was a legally sufficient reason to excuse the missed 90-day service deadline. If service had occurred, Wong also had to file proof of service.

The order did not itself dismiss the case. Judge Cronan warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to pursue it if Wong did not file the required letter.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wong v. Jounce Therapeutics, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03044
Judge
John Cronan
Date
July 27, 2023

Background

Wong filed the complaint on April 11, 2022. The defendants had not appeared, and the docket did not indicate whether they had been served. Wong also had not requested additional time to serve them.

Service Requirement

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a plaintiff to serve each defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint. If service is not completed by that deadline, the court may dismiss the action against the unserved defendant or set a deadline for service. If the plaintiff shows good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for the delay, the court must extend the service period for an appropriate time. The opinion described good cause as requiring diligent attempts and exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.

Order

The Court ordered Wong to file a status letter by August 3, 2023. The letter had to state whether service of the summons and complaint had been made on any defendant. If service had not been made, the letter had to explain why good cause existed to excuse the failure to serve within the 90-day period. Wong had to file the letter even if service had already occurred; in that event, Wong also had to file proof of service on the docket by August 3, 2023.

The order warned that the Court could dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if Wong did not file the required letter. The order did not itself dismiss the action or decide the underlying 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.