Qiu et al v. Shanghai Cuisine, Inc. et al

Filing 121

SCHEDULING ORDER: On August 3, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs a final extension to serve Defendants Chenwen Ho and Na Sun by August 21, 2020. Doc. 102. On August 11, 2020, Plaintiffs returned an executed summons purporting that Ho an d Sun had been served. Doc. 103; Doc. 104. On August 22, 2020, Ho and Sun filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint as to them based on insufficient service of process; that motion remains pending before the Court . Doc. 105. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs attempted service again and returned an executed summons on September 21, 2020. Doc. 114. On September 29, 2020, Ho and Sun again moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for insufficient service of pr ocess, this time arguing that any service attempted after the Court's final service deadline is invalid. Doc. 120. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit their opposition by October 22, 2020, and Defendants Ho and Sun to submit their reply by October 29, 2020. ( Responses due by 10/22/2020, Replies due by 10/29/2020.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/2/2020) (mro) Modified on 10/2/2020 (mro).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TING QIU QIU, JIAN WEI DENG, YU BO
SU, ZHAO-BANG BAI, AND SHAOHONG
ZENG, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
– against –

SCHEDULING ORDER

SHANGHAI CUISINE, INC. d/b/a Shanghai
Cuisine Bar & Restaurant, R & M CENTURY,
INC. d/b/a Shanghai Cuisine Bar & Restaurant,
JOHN DOE CORPORATION, JONATHAN HO,
NA SUN, JIJIE HONG, WING JING LAU,
JOSEPHINE FENG, and CHENWEN HO,

18 Civ. 5448 (ER)

Defendants.
RAMOS, D.J.
On August 3, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs a final extension to serve Defendants
Chenwen Ho and Na Sun by August 21, 2020. Doc. 102. On August 11, 2020, Plaintiffs
returned an executed summons purporting that Ho and Sun had been served. Doc. 103; Doc.
104. On August 22, 2020, Ho and Sun filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint as to them based on insufficient service of process; that motion remains pending
before the Court. Doc. 105. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs attempted service again and returned an
executed summons on September 21, 2020. Doc. 114. On September 29, 2020, Ho and Sun
again moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for insufficient service of process, this time arguing
that any service attempted after the Court’s final service deadline is invalid. Doc. 120.
�e Court directs Plaintiffs to submit their opposition by October 22, 2020, and
Defendants Ho and Sun to submit their reply by October 29, 2020.
Dated:

October 2, 2020
New York, New York
EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.