Alexander Gomez v. 3513 East Tremont LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-08159
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ----------------------------------------------------------X : ALEXANDER GOMEZ, : : Plaintiff, : : 24-CV-8159 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER 3513 EAST TREMONT LLC, et al., : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained summons as to each Defendant on October 29, 2024. (Docs. 5–6.) The deadline for Plaintiff to effectuate service on each Defendant was therefore January 16, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). To date, however, 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 February 10, 2025, 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: — February 3, 2025 i □ i ) New York, New York UIC 124 VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge