Lopez v. Guziczek
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-10099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lopez v. Guziczek, Judge Roman granted Lopez a final extension to serve Guziczek and provide a required release.
Crystal Lopez received additional time to complete service on Police Officer Christopher Guziczek and provide the required executed release; Guziczek remained subject to the final November 17, 2023 service deadline.
What happened
In Lopez v. Guziczek, Crystal Lopez asked for more time to properly serve Police Officer Christopher Guziczek. She had served the amended complaint but had not attached a court-issued summons, making the service defective.
The court considered Lopez’s efforts to serve the defendants, the delay, and any possible harm to the defendants. Lopez had attempted service within 90 days, promptly requested a summons after the defect was identified, and reported continued efforts to complete service and the required 160.50 release.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Lopez’s request for an extension for good cause. He set November 17, 2023, as the final deadline to serve Guziczek with the amended complaint and summons and provide him with an executed 160.50 release. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Guziczek · No. 7:21-cv-10099
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 23, 2023
Background
Crystal Lopez filed this federal action on November 26, 2021. After a period with no activity, the court issued an order requiring her to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Lopez responded, and the court vacated that order and directed her to file an amended complaint.
Lopez filed the amended complaint on March 31,
- She served Police Officer Christopher Guziczek and John Doe Police Officers 1 and 2 on June 23, 2023, but the service was defective because she did not attach a court-issued summons. The proof of service was filed on July 29,
- After Guziczek’s counsel identified the defect, Lopez’s counsel stated that he had retained a process server and was working to serve the amended complaint, summons, and a required 160.50 release. The clerk issued the summons on September 12,
- As of the order, Lopez had not filed additional proof of service on Guziczek or indicated that she had provided the executed release.
Rule and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed on time, the court must dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice unless the plaintiff shows good cause; the court may also extend the deadline in its discretion even without good cause.
The court found good cause here. Lopez had attempted service within the 90-day period, serving the amended complaint 84 days after filing it, although without the court-issued summons. She responded promptly to court orders, requested issuance of the summons shortly after the service defect was raised, and filed status reports showing continued efforts to complete service and the release. The court therefore exercised its discretion to extend the service deadline.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Lopez’s request for an extension for good cause. The court set November 17, 2023, as the final deadline for Lopez to serve Guziczek with the amended complaint and summons and provide him with an executed 160.50 release. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 11 and 23. The order addressed service and related procedural requirements, not the merits of Lopez’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.