Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 24, 2023

Yan Luis v. Salon Commodities, LTD

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-06271
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kevin Yan Luis v. Salon Commodities, Judge Broderick ordered proof of good cause for delayed service or warned of dismissal.

Who this affects

Kevin Yan Luis must explain the failure to serve Salon Commodities, LTD; the case may be dismissed if he does not comply and show good cause.

What happened

Kevin Yan Luis sued Salon Commodities, LTD. He obtained a summons, but he had not filed proof that Salon Commodities was served or taken other action to move the case forward.

The court ordered Kevin Yan Luis to submit, by November 1, 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 Salon Commodities within 90 days after filing the complaint.

The order did not dismiss the case. It warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Yan Luis v. Salon Commodities, LTD · No. 1:23-cv-06271
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Oct. 24, 2023

Background

Kevin Yan Luis filed this action against Salon Commodities, LTD on July 20, 2023. He obtained a summons on October 16, 2023. As of the order, however, he had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.

Order

The court ordered Kevin Yan Luis to submit, no later than November 1, a letter of no more than three pages demonstrating good cause for the failure to serve Salon Commodities within 90 days after the complaint was filed. The letter must be supported by legal authority.

The order explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure to serve process on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. The court also stated that it considers the plaintiff's diligence in attempting service and any prejudice caused to the defendant by the delay. The order 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. It warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.