Espinal v. Lida, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than October 3, 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 pursua nt 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. Refr actories 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 Defendant within ninety days after the complaint was filed will result in dismissal of this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/25/2024) (sgz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
:
FRANGIE ESPINAL, On Behalf Of Herself
:
And All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
LIDA, INC.,
:
:
Defendant. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

24-CV-4675 (VSB)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
On June 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff
obtained a summons on June 20, 2024. (Doc. 5.) To date, Plaintiff 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 October 3, 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 Defendant within ninety days after the complaint was filed will
result in dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 25, 2024
New York, New York
VERNON S. BRODERICK
United States District Judge