Sookul v. Brother's Bond Distilling Company, LLC
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-09273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sookul v. Brother’s Bond, Judge Clarke dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Plaintiffs did not timely serve Defendant or show good cause.
The plaintiffs and the proposed similarly situated class members were affected because their complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The defendant was affected because the case was closed.
What happened
In Sookul v. Brother’s Bond Distilling Company, LLC, the plaintiffs filed a proposed class action complaint on October 20, 2023. The court required them to explain why they had not served the defendant within the required 90 days.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer said a process-serving company had tried three times to serve the defendant at different addresses. The lawyer blamed the delay on the process server and requested more time after locating what counsel believed was the correct address.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown the exceptional circumstances required to excuse the delay. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Sookul v. Brother's Bond Distilling Company, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-09273
- Clarke
- Feb. 13, 2024
Background
Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed the complaint against Brother’s Bond Distilling Company, LLC, on October 20, 2023. On January 29, 2024, the court ordered the plaintiffs to explain why they had not served the summons and complaint within the 90 days required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court warned that it would dismiss the complaint if the plaintiffs did not show good cause.
The plaintiffs’ counsel responded that his office had sent the summons and complaint to a process-serving company on November 30, 2023. The company attempted service on December 8, 2023, January 30, 2024, and February 9, 2024, at three different addresses. Counsel stated that the process-serving company was responsible for locating the correct address and that the failure to complete service was therefore not the plaintiffs’ fault. Counsel also stated that his office had taken over service efforts, located what it considered the correct address, and requested additional time.
Rule and Analysis
Rule 4(m) requires a court to dismiss an action without prejudice or order service within a specified time when a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the service deadline. The court explained that good cause requires diligent attempts to serve the defendant and exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. Mere attorney inadvertence, neglect, or mistake is not enough.
The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause. It concluded that the plaintiffs’ response blamed the process server rather than identifying exceptional circumstances that prevented service. The court held that the plaintiffs were responsible for diligently monitoring the process server and ensuring that service was completed within 90 days.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.