Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Aqua Docs Water Restoration Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-00838
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Insured Advocacy Group v. Aqua Docs, Judge Broderick ordered the plaintiff to explain its failure to serve defendants or face dismissal.
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC, and the defendants Aqua Docs Water Restoration, Inc., John Devia, and Melissa Mayhew.
What happened
In Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Aqua Docs Water Restoration, Inc., the plaintiff filed the case on February 5, 2024, and obtained a summons on February 14, 2024. The opinion says the plaintiff had not filed proof of service or taken other action to prosecute the case.
The court ordered the plaintiff to file, by May 24, 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). The letter must cite legal authority and show a legally sufficient reason for the failure to serve the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to file the letter and demonstrate good cause would result in dismissal of the action. This order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Aqua Docs Water Restoration Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00838
- Vernon Broderick
- May 14, 2024
Background
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC filed the action against Aqua Docs Water Restoration, Inc., John Devia, individually, and Melissa Mayhew, individually, on February 5, 2024. The plaintiff obtained a summons on February 14, 2024. The court stated that the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff to submit, no later than May 24, 2024, a letter of no more than three pages, supported by legal authority, showing good cause why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule concerns the deadline for serving defendants with the summons and complaint. The court explained that good cause generally requires exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and that courts consider the plaintiff’s diligence and any prejudice to the defendants from delay.
Disposition and effect
The court warned that failure to submit the letter and demonstrate good cause for not serving the defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed would result in dismissal of the action. Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not dismiss the action in this order; instead, he gave the plaintiff an opportunity to explain the failure to complete service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.