Mullins v. Novatech et al

Filing 4

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than May 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall submit a letter of no more than three (3) pages, supported by legal authority, demonstrating good cause as to why this case should not be dismissed pu rsuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). As further set forth in this order. 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 5/10/2024) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
:
AVIS MULLINS, individually and on behalf of :
all others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
NOVATECH, a foreign company, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

24-CV-00824 (VSB)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Two days
later, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff, however, has yet to request
a summons, let alone file an affidavit of service. Plaintiff has likewise failed to take any other
action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that, no later than May 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall submit a letter of no more
than three (3) pages, supported by legal authority, 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:

May 10, 2024
New York, New York

________________________________
VERNON S. BRODERICK
United States District Judge