Arzu Norales v. Bondi

S.D. New York

Arzu Norales v. Bondi

DecidedMay 22, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-01152

StatusUnknown

This text of Arzu Norales v. Bondi (Arzu Norales v. Bondi) 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

Arzu Norales v. Bondi, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : Victor Francisco Arzu Norales, : : Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-1152 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER PAMELA BONDI, et al., : : Defendants. : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On February 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint to initiate this action. (Doc. 1.) Due to a filing error, Plaintiff filed another complaint on February 13, 2025. (Doc. 2.) On March 30, 2025, Plaintiff requested issuances of summons. (Docs. 4–9.) The next day, electronic summonses were issued. (Docs. 10–14.) 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 June 6, 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: May 22, 2025 New York, New York / fo

Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : Victor Francisco Arzu Norales, : : Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-1152 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER PAMELA BONDI, et al., : : Defendants. : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On February 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint to initiate this action. (Doc. 1.) Due to a filing error, Plaintiff filed another complaint on February 13, 2025. (Doc. 2.) On March 30, 2025, Plaintiff requested issuances of summons. (Docs. 4–9.) The next day, electronic summonses were issued. (Docs. 10–14.) 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 June 6, 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: May 22, 2025 New York, New York / fo

Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Arzu Norales v. Bondi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arzu-norales-v-bondi-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack