Gonzalez v. C K Collection, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-08177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gonzalez v. C K Collection, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered Gonzalez to explain by January 4 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of service.
Yanilza Gonzalez and the pending action against C K Collection, Inc.; the order also concerns C K Collection, Inc. as the defendant who had not been shown to have been served.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. C K Collection, Inc., Yanilza Gonzalez sued C K Collection, Inc. on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.
Gonzalez filed the case on September 15, 2023, and obtained a summons three days later. 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 Gonzalez to submit, by January 4, 2024, a legal letter of no more than three pages explaining why there was good cause for the failure to serve the defendant within 90 days. Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to submit the letter and show good cause would result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. C K Collection, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08177
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 21, 2023
Background
Yanilza Gonzalez filed this action against C K Collection, Inc. on September 15, 2023, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. She obtained a summons on September 18, 2023. The opinion states that Gonzalez had not filed an affidavit of service, which is a sworn document showing that the defendant received the lawsuit papers, or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Gonzalez to submit a letter of no more than three pages by January 4, 2024. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The rule concerns the time for serving a defendant after a complaint is filed. The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances when the failure to serve on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. It also noted that courts consider the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice to the defendant from the delay.
Effect
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it required Gonzalez to explain the failure to serve the defendant and warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint 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.