Toro v. My Perfect Pet, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-06019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toro v. My Perfect Pet, Judge Broderick ordered Jasmine Toro to explain by November 1 why her case should not be dismissed for lack of timely service.
Jasmine Toro and My Perfect Pet, Inc.; the order required Toro to explain the failure to serve the defendant and warned of possible dismissal.
What happened
In Toro v. My Perfect Pet, Inc., Jasmine Toro sued My Perfect Pet, Inc. on July 13, 2023. She obtained a summons the next day, but the court said she had not filed proof that the defendant was served or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Toro to submit, by November 1, 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 must be supported by legal authority and show good cause for the failure to serve the defendant within 90 days after the complaint was filed.
The order did not dismiss the case. It warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick also explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
The detailed version
- Toro v. My Perfect Pet, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06019
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 18, 2023
Background
Jasmine Toro filed this action against My Perfect Pet, Inc. on July 13, 2023. The caption identifies Toro as bringing the case on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. Toro obtained a summons on July 14, 2023. The court stated that she had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Toro to submit a letter by November 1, 2023. The letter could not exceed three pages and had to be supported by legal authority. It had to demonstrate good cause—meaning a legally sufficient reason—for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Rule 4(m) concerns timely service of the summons and complaint. The court stated that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also stated that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting proper service and any prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. The court noted 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. Instead, it set a deadline for Toro to explain the failure to serve My Perfect Pet, Inc. and warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint would result in dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.