Kakar Kurtz et al v. Hansell et al

Filing 140

ORDER: Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 1, 2020. Dkt. 1. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a defendant be served with the Summons and Complaint within 90 days after the Complaint is filed. Despite t he Court granting several extensions of time for plaintiffs to do so, see Dkts. 106, 119, plaintiffs have not filed proof of service as to several defendants, some of whom have appeared in this action and others who have not. It is hereby ORDERED tha t plaintiffs advise the Court in writing why plaintiff failed to serve the Summons and Complaint within the authorized period, or, if plaintiff believes that these defendants have been served, when and in what manner such service was made. It is fur ther ORDERED that if the Court does not receive written communication from plaintiffs by April 5, 2021, showing good cause why such service was not made within the authorized time,the Court will dismiss plaintiffs' remaining claims against those defendants. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/24/2021) (ama)

Case 1:20-cv-03401-PAE Document 140 Filed 03/24/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHVETA KAKAR KURTZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-v20 Civ. 3401 (PAE)
DAVID HANSELL, as the Duly Appointed
Commissioner of the New York City Administration
for Children’s Services, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 1, 2020. Dkt. 1. Rule 4(m) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a defendant be served with the Summons and
Complaint within 90 days after the Complaint is filed. Despite the Court granting several
extensions of time for plaintiffs to do so, see Dkts. 106, 119, plaintiffs have not filed proof of
service as to several defendants, some of whom have appeared in this action and others who have
not.1 It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs advise the Court in writing why plaintiff failed to
serve the Summons and Complaint within the authorized period, or, if plaintiff believes that
these defendants have been served, when and in what manner such service was made. It is
further ORDERED that if the Court does not receive written communication from plaintiffs by
April 5, 2021, showing good cause why such service was not made within the authorized time,
the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining claims against those defendants.

1

From the Court’s review of the docket, the non-appearing defendants as to whom plaintiffs
have failed to file proof of service are: Bhojranie Maygoo, Eunice Iwenofu, and Esperanza
Sandoval. The appearing defendants as to whom plaintiffs have failed to so file are: David
Hansell, Division of Child Protection, Brenda Lawson, Yscary Rodriguez, Dr. Marie Lupica,
Dr. Ramzi Marwan Shaykh, Dr. Shari Platt, and New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell.

Case 1:20-cv-03401-PAE Document 140 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 2

SO ORDERED.

PaJA.�

______________________________
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge
Dated: March 24, 2021
New York, New York

2