Zurich American Insurance Company v. M/V "ONE HARBOUR"
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-09263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zurich American Insurance Company v. M/V “ONE HARBOUR,” Judge Broderick ordered a showing of good cause before possible dismissal for lack of service.
The order directly affects Zurich American Insurance Company, which must explain its failure to serve the defendants; it also concerns M/V “ONE HARBOUR” and the other defendants because the court warned that the action may be dismissed if Zurich does not show good cause.
What happened
Zurich American Insurance Company v. M/V “ONE HARBOUR” concerns an action filed by Zurich American Insurance Company against the listed defendants. The opinion states that Zurich filed the case on October 20, 2023, and obtained summonses three days later.
The court said Zurich had not filed proof that the defendants were served or taken other action to prosecute the case. The opinion did not itself dismiss the action.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Zurich to submit, by February 28, 2024, a legal letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). He warned that failure to submit the letter and show good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days would result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Zurich American Insurance Company v. M/V "ONE HARBOUR" · No. 1:23-cv-09263
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 14, 2024
Background
Zurich American Insurance Company filed this action against M/V “ONE HARBOUR” and other defendants on October 20, 2023. Zurich obtained summonses on October 23, 2023. The court stated that Zurich had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Zurich to submit, no later than February 28, 2024, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The order explains that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances in which the failure to serve process on time resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. It also identifies the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and any prejudice to the defendants from the delay as relevant considerations. The order states that an attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, he required Zurich to explain the failure to serve the defendants and warned that failure to submit the required letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants 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.