Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 11, 2023

Abreu v. City of New York

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-03814
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Abreu v. City of New York, Judge Broderick ordered Bryan Abreu to explain his failure to serve defendants or face dismissal.

Who this affects

Bryan Abreu must address the failure to serve the defendants by August 17, 2023; the defendants face possible dismissal of the action if he does not show good cause.

What happened

In Abreu v. City of New York, Bryan Abreu sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, Dermot Shea, and two unidentified police officers. The court said Abreu had not obtained summonses or filed proof of service.

The court ordered Abreu to file, by August 17, 2023, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants within the required time. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and show a legally sufficient reason for the delay.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to file the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The order did not itself dismiss the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Abreu v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-03814
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Aug. 11, 2023

Background

Bryan Abreu filed this action against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, Dermot Shea, individually and as New York City Police Commissioner, and two unidentified police officers. The opinion states that Abreu filed the action on May 6, 2023. It also states that he had not obtained summonses or filed affidavits of service.

Order concerning service

The court ordered Abreu to submit a letter of no more than three pages by August 17, 2023. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause—meaning a legally sufficient explanation—for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay.

Disposition

The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it warned that Abreu’s failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants within ninety days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order.

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.