056 Deli & Grocery Corp. v. United States of America
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-05557
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 056 Deli & Grocery Corp. v. United States of America, Judge Cronan ordered plaintiffs to report on service of process or risk dismissal.
056 Deli & Grocery Corp. and Sandra Pichardo Mejias were required to report on service of process; the United States of America and the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service were the defendants whose service status had to be addressed.
What happened
In 056 Deli & Grocery Corp. v. United States of America, the court noted that the complaint was filed on June 29, 2023, but the docket did not show that plaintiffs had obtained summonses or served the defendants.
The court ordered 056 Deli & Grocery Corp. and Sandra Pichardo Mejias to file a status letter by October 11, 2023. The letter had to address whether summonses were obtained, whether the defendants were served, and, if they were not served within 90 days, why there was good cause for the delay. If service had occurred, plaintiffs also had to file proof of service.
Judge John P. Cronan warned that failing to file the letter could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- 056 Deli & Grocery Corp. v. United States of America · No. 1:23-cv-05557
- John Cronan
- Oct. 6, 2023
Background
056 Deli & Grocery Corp. and Sandra Pichardo Mejias filed the complaint on June 29, 2023, against the United States of America and the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. The court stated that the docket did not show whether plaintiffs had obtained summonses or served the defendants. Plaintiffs also had not requested more time to complete service.
Applicable rule
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If a defendant is not served within that period, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, 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.
Court's order
The court ordered plaintiffs to file a status letter by October 11, 2023, stating: (1) whether they had obtained summonses and, if not, why; (2) whether they had served the summonses and complaint on the defendants; and (3) if service had not been completed, why good cause existed to excuse missing Rule 4(m)'s 90-day deadline. Plaintiffs had to file the letter even if service had already occurred. If the defendants had been served, plaintiffs also had to file proof of service by October 11, 2023.
Judge John P. Cronan warned that if plaintiffs did not file the required letter, the court might dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.