Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 20, 2024

Norris v. Ritual Vintage Inc

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-09071
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Norris v. Ritual Vintage Inc., Judge Broderick ordered Namel Norris to explain by March 5 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of timely service.

Who this affects

Namel Norris must explain the failure to serve Ritual Vintage Inc and OR 377 Broome, LLC by March 5, 2024, or the action will be dismissed.

What happened

In Norris v. Ritual Vintage Inc. and OR 377 Broome, LLC, Namel Norris filed the case on October 15, 2023, and obtained summonses the next day. The opinion says Norris had not filed proof of service or taken other action to prosecute the case.

The court ordered Norris to submit, by March 5, 2024, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under the federal rule governing service of process. The letter must be supported by legal authority and show good cause for the failure to serve the defendants within 90 days.

The court warned that failing to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause will result in dismissal of the action. Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on February 20, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
Norris v. Ritual Vintage Inc · No. 1:23-cv-09071
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Feb. 20, 2024

Background

Namel Norris filed this action against Ritual Vintage Inc and OR 377 Broome, LLC on October 15, 2023. Norris obtained summonses on October 16, 2023. The court stated that Norris had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.

Order

The court ordered Norris to submit a letter of no more than three pages by March 5, 2024. The letter must be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause—meaning a legally sufficient reason—for why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns serving defendants within the required time. The court cited standards addressing the plaintiff’s diligence, prejudice to defendants, and whether circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control caused the delay.

Effect

The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint will result in dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered the order on February 20, 2024.

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.