Abreu v. City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-03814
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Abreu v. City of New York, Judge Broderick granted Abreu more time to serve defendants after finding no good cause but exercising discretion.
Bryan Abreu received additional time to serve the City of New York. The City and the other named defendants remained subject to the service process, and the order required affidavits showing service on the City by October 17, 2023.
What happened
In Abreu v. City of New York, Bryan Abreu asked for more time to formally notify the defendants of the lawsuit. He said his law office failed to obtain summonses and that one attorney had medical problems.
The court found that these circumstances did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required to show good cause. But it still granted the extension because the limitations period had expired, the City knew about Abreu’s claims, and the City had already taken his deposition.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Abreu to file affidavits showing service on the City of New York by October 17, 2023, and said he did not expect to grant another extension.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-03814
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 17, 2023
Background
The court had previously ordered Bryan Abreu to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failing to serve the defendants within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Abreu responded by requesting an extension. He attributed the failure to obtain summonses and complete service to law-office problems, including staff’s failure to secure summonses and medical issues involving one of his firm’s two attorneys. At the time of the order, he still had not obtained summonses.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 4(m) generally requires a court to dismiss an action without prejudice against a defendant who is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, or to order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause, the court must extend the service period. The court explained that good cause requires exceptional circumstances and that attorney inadvertence, neglect, or mistake does not qualify.
The court found no good cause. It concluded that failing even to obtain summonses during the three-month period because of law-office problems was not an exceptional circumstance. The attorney’s medical issues also did not explain why the firm could not obtain summonses, hire a process server, or arrange other assistance.
The court nevertheless decided that a discretionary extension was appropriate even without good cause. It relied on three factors: Abreu’s claims would be barred by the statute of limitations if the action were dismissed; the City of New York knew about the claims; and the City had already taken discovery, including Abreu’s deposition. The court found no issue involving concealment of the service defect.
Ruling
The court granted Abreu’s motion for an extension of time to serve. Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Abreu to file affidavits showing service on the City of New York by October 17, 2023. The order stated that service must otherwise follow Local Civil Rule 83.10’s requirements for service in Section 1983 actions involving the New York City Police Department. Because the court found no good cause, it stated that it did not expect to grant further extensions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.