Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-10380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ng v. Sedgwick, Judge Vyskocil ordered service by April 19, 2024, warning that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Brian Coke Ng and the four Sedgwick defendants named in the caption. Ng was ordered to serve the amended complaint and file proof of service by April 19, 2024.
What happened
In Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc., Brian Coke Ng filed a lawsuit on November 28, 2023, and later filed an amended complaint two days before the initial service deadline expired.
The court ordered Ng to serve the defendants with the amended complaint and file proof of service by April 19, 2024. The order warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not file proof of service or show a good reason for extending the deadline.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued an order directing service; she did not dismiss the case in this order. The court also warned that failure to follow court orders and pursue the case could eventually result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
The detailed version
- Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10380
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
Brian Coke Ng filed the complaint on November 28, 2023. The defendants named in the caption are Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc., Sedgwick Global Inc., Sedgwick, Inc., and Sedgwick, L.P. Ng then filed an amended complaint two days before the initial 90-day period for serving the defendants had expired.
Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) addresses the deadline for serving defendants. It provides that, when a defendant is not served within the required period, the court may dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice or order service by 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 ordered Ng to serve the defendants with the amended complaint and file proof of service on the docket by April 19, 2024. The court stated that, if proof of service was not filed by that date and Ng did not show good cause for another extension, it would dismiss the case.
Warning About Further Noncompliance
The court also warned that failure to comply with court orders and prosecute the case could result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). This order itself directed service and did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.