Jefferson v. The City of New York et al

Filing 9

ORDER, The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' proposed orders to show cause for emergency relief of the issuance of summons (ECF Nos. 2-5). Plaintiffs' request is DENIED. Filing of the Complaint is sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 to commence this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 9/25/24) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHAMAR JOHNSON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

24-cv-7212 (ALC)
ORDER

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ proposed orders to show cause for emergency relief of
the issuance of summons (ECF Nos. 2-5). Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff filed
this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
1988, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of
the State of New York on September 24, 2024. ECF No. 1.
Because jurisdiction here is based upon federal question, the simple filing of the Complaint
is sufficient to stop the clock for statute of limitations purposes. See Eastman v. Norton, No. 1:14cv-00103-jgm, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24141, at *4 (D. Vt. Feb. 25, 2015) ("[W]hen the
underlying cause of action is based on federal law and a court borrows a state limitations period,
the action is not barred if it has been commenced in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 within the
borrowed period.") (citing West v. Conrail, 481 U.S. 35, 39, 107 S. Ct. 1538, 95 L. Ed. 2d 32
(1987)) (cleaned up). Filing of the Complaint is sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 to commence
this action.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

September 25, 2024
New York, New York
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR.
United States District Judge

2