Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. v. CMA CGM, S.A.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-09664
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Expeditors v. CMA CGM, Judge Cronan ordered a service-status letter and proof of service, warning the case may be dismissed.
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. was required to report on service and potentially explain any failure to serve CMA CGM, S.A.; the case could be dismissed if Expeditors failed to file the required letter.
What happened
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. sued CMA CGM, S.A., but the court could not determine from the docket whether CMA CGM had been served. Expeditors had not requested more time to serve the defendant.
The court ordered Expeditors to file a letter by March 8, 2024, stating whether service had occurred and, if not, why there was good cause to excuse missing the 90-day service deadline. If service had occurred, Expeditors also had to file proof of service by that date.
Judge John P. Cronan warned that failing to file the letter could lead to dismissal of the case without further notice for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. v. CMA CGM, S.A. · No. 1:23-cv-09664
- John Cronan
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. filed the complaint on November 2, 2023. The docket did not show whether CMA CGM, S.A. had been served, and Expeditors had not asked for an extension of the time to serve the defendant.
Service requirement
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed within that period, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the service period for an appropriate time.
The court directed Expeditors to file a status letter by March 8, 2024. The letter had to state whether service of the summons and complaint had been made. If service had not been made, Expeditors had to explain why good cause existed to excuse the failure to meet the 90-day deadline. The court described good cause as requiring diligent attempts and exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
Expeditors had to file the letter even if service had already occurred. If CMA CGM had been served, Expeditors also had to file proof of service on the docket by March 8, 2024.
Ruling and possible consequence
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the status filing and proof of service as described above. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It warned that failure to file the required letter could result in dismissal without further notice for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.