Uppal v. NYS Department of Health et al

Filing 68

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit a letter of no more than three (3) pages demonstrating good cause as to why this case should not be dismissed p ursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). "Good cause is generally found only in exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff's failure to serve process in a timely manner was the result of circumstances beyond its control.&quo t; E. Refractories Co. v. Forty Eight Insulations, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). "District courts consider the diligence of plaintiff's efforts to effect proper service and any prejudic e suffered by the defendant as a consequence of the delay." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "An attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause." Howard v. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, 977 F. Supp. 654, 658 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing McGregor v. United States, 933 F.2d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 1991), aff'd, 173 F.3d 844 (2d Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff is warned that failure to submit a letter and to demonstrate good cause for failure to serve Defendants within ninety days after the complaint was filed will result in dismissal of this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 6/16/2020) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
:
NEELAM UPPAL,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
:
HEALTH, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

6/16/2020

16-CV-3038 (VSB)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 65.) By Opinion & Order
dated September 27, 2019, I granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add the Florida
State Department of Health and the Carlton Fields Law Firm (together, “Remaining
Defendants”), and dismissed all other defendants from this action. (Doc. 63.) On October 29,
2019, I issued an Order of Service, directing the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff one U.S.
Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285”) for each Remaining Defendant.
(Doc. 65.) The Order directed Plaintiff to complete the forms as to each Remaining Defendant
and return them within thirty (30) days, or, in the alternative, to notify the Court in writing that
she wished to effect service herself and that she requested a summons be issued directly to her.
(Id. at 1.) I further specified that it was Plaintiff’s responsibility to effect service or, if necessary,
to request an extension of time. (Id. at 2 (citing Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir.
2012).) The Order notified Plaintiff that failure to effect service or to request an extension of
time could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) On October 29, 2019, the Clerk of Court mailed the
Order of Service and an information package, including the two USM-285 forms, to Plaintiff.

(See Doc. 66.)
To date, Plaintiff has not returned the USM-285 forms or submitted a letter requesting
issuance of the summons directly to her. She also has not filed an affidavit of service or taken
any other action to prosecute this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall
submit a letter of no more than three (3) pages demonstrating good cause as to why this case
should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). “Good cause is
generally found only in exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff’s failure to serve process
in a timely manner was the result of circumstances beyond its control.” E. Refractories Co. v.
Forty Eight Insulations, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “District courts consider the diligence of plaintiff's efforts to effect proper service and
any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a consequence of the delay.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). “An attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake or misplaced reliance does not
constitute good cause.” Howard v. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, 977 F. Supp. 654, 658
(S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing McGregor v. United States, 933 F.2d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 1991), aff’d, 173
F.3d 844 (2d Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff is warned that failure to submit a letter and to demonstrate
good cause for failure to serve Defendants within ninety days after the complaint was filed will
result in dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 16, 2020
New York, New York

________________________________
VERNON S. BRODERICK
United States District Judge