Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 18, 2023

S&R Worldwide v. Neutraceutical Wellness Inc.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-09238
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In S & R Worldwide v. Neutraceutical Wellness Inc., Judge Liman dismissed the action without prejudice because Plaintiff did not timely serve Defendant.

Who this affects

S & R Worldwide’s action against Neutraceutical Wellness Inc. was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

What happened

S & R Worldwide sued Neutraceutical Wellness Inc. The court ordered S & R Worldwide to serve Neutraceutical Wellness Inc. by April 10, 2023, or explain why the case should not be dismissed.

S & R Worldwide did not file proof that Neutraceutical Wellness Inc. had been served. It also did not show cause for failing to complete service, even though nearly 10 months had passed since the complaint was filed.

Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
S&R Worldwide v. Neutraceutical Wellness Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09238
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Aug. 18, 2023

Background

S & R Worldwide filed its complaint on October 27, 2022. At an initial conference, the court ordered S & R Worldwide to serve Neutraceutical Wellness Inc. by April 10, 2023, or show cause—give a legally sufficient explanation—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to make timely service of process. The complaint alleged that Neutraceutical Wellness Inc. was believed to be a foreign company with a registered agent in New York.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed within that period, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order service within a specified time, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the delay. The court noted that S & R Worldwide had not filed proof of service or shown cause for its failure to make timely service. Nearly 10 months had passed since filing, and S & R Worldwide had provided no explanation for its inability to complete service. The court also cited Second Circuit authority concerning the foreign-country exception to Rule 4(m)’s service deadline.

Disposition

The court ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not decide the underlying merits of S & R Worldwide’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.