Mullins v. Novatech
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-00824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mullins v. Novatech, Judge Broderick ordered Avis Mullins to show good cause for not serving defendants or face possible dismissal.
Avis Mullins and the defendants in the case, including Novatech.
What happened
In Mullins v. Novatech, Avis Mullins filed the case and then filed an amended complaint two days later. The opinion says Mullins had not requested a summons, filed proof of service, or taken other action to move the case forward.
The court ordered Mullins to submit, by May 15, 2024, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under a federal rule governing service of the complaint. The letter must be supported by legal authority and show good cause for the delay.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to show good cause for serving the defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed will result in dismissal of the case. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Mullins v. Novatech · No. 1:24-cv-00824
- Vernon Broderick
- May 10, 2024
Background
Avis Mullins filed this action against Novatech and other defendants on February 5, 2024, and filed a first amended complaint two days later. The court stated that Mullins had not requested a summons, filed an affidavit of service, or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered Mullins to submit, no later than May 15, 2024, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns the time for serving defendants with the complaint. The letter had to be supported by legal authority and demonstrate good cause for the failure to serve the defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed.
The court explained that good cause generally exists only in exceptional circumstances beyond a plaintiff's control and may depend on the plaintiff's diligence and any prejudice caused by the delay. It also stated that an attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued an order requiring Mullins to show good cause. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but warned that failure to show good cause for the service delay will result in dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.