Abreu v. City of New York

S.D. New York

Abreu v. City of New York

DecidedAugust 11, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-03814

StatusUnknown

This text of Abreu v. City of New York (Abreu v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abreu v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X : BRYAN ABREU, : : Plaintiff, : : 23-CV-3814 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK : CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DERMOT : SHEA, individually and as New York City : Police Commissioner, John Doe 1, individually : and as a police officer, John Doe 2, individually : and as a police officer, : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On May 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has not obtained summonses or filed affidavits of service. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than August 17, 2023, Plaintiff shall submit a letter of no more than three 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. f Dated: August 11, 2023 Hp ene le an, } New York, New York __¥ LY AD A] pe La VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X : BRYAN ABREU, : : Plaintiff, : : 23-CV-3814 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK : CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DERMOT : SHEA, individually and as New York City : Police Commissioner, John Doe 1, individually : and as a police officer, John Doe 2, individually : and as a police officer, : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On May 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has not obtained summonses or filed affidavits of service. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than August 17, 2023, Plaintiff shall submit a letter of no more than three 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. f Dated: August 11, 2023 Hp ene le an, } New York, New York __¥ LY AD A] pe La VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Abreu v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack