Castro Ajmad v. FCB Commodites LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-05776
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Castro Ajmad v. Crescioni: Judge Broderick ordered a good-cause letter explaining failure to serve defendants, warning that the action will be dismissed otherwise.
The order directly affects Roxana Berenice Castro Ajmad and concerns service of process on Dwight Crescioni and the other defendants.
What happened
In Roxana Berenice Castro Ajmad v. Dwight Crescioni, et al., the plaintiff filed the action and obtained a summons, but had not filed proof of service or taken other steps to prosecute the case.
The court ordered the plaintiff to submit, by October 23, 2023, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The letter had to be supported by legal authority and show good cause for the failure to serve the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. The order did not dismiss the case at that time.
The detailed version
- Castro Ajmad v. FCB Commodites LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05776
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Roxana Berenice Castro Ajmad filed the action on July 6, 2023, and obtained a summons on July 14, 2023. The opinion states that, as of October 16, 2023, she had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Castro Ajmad to submit a letter of no more than three pages by October 23, 2023. The letter must be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns timely service of process.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve process on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also identified the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay as relevant considerations. The court stated that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.