Gonzalez v. Clipper Connection, LLC

S.D. New York

Gonzalez v. Clipper Connection, LLC

DecidedDecember 28, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-07930

StatusUnknown

This text of Gonzalez v. Clipper Connection, LLC (Gonzalez v. Clipper Connection, LLC) 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

Gonzalez v. Clipper Connection, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ieee Ane SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCH, —_______ DATE FILED: _12/28/2023 GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, 23-cv-07930 (ALC) -against- ORDER CLIPPER CONNECTION, LLC, Defendant. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint commencing this action against Defendant Clipper Connection, LLC but failed to serve Defendant with process in a timely manner. ECF No. 1. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). ECF No. 5. Plaintiff filed a timely response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and stated that “Plaintiff has attempted to reach the Defendant via phone and via process server” unsuccessfully and that “Plaintiff intends on attempting service via the Secretary of State.” Under the law of this Circuit, good cause exists to excuse a failure to timely serve a defendant only in “exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff's failure to serve process in a timely manner was the result of circumstances beyond its control." Ping Chen ex rel. U.S. vy. EMSL Analytical, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 282, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting FE. Refractories Co. v. Forty Eight Insulations, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)). The burden of proof to show good cause is a “heavy one,” Spinale v. United States, No. 03-CV-01704 (KMW) (JCF), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4608, 2005 WL 659150, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2005) (citation omitted), and “[a]n attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.” Ping Chen, 966 F. Supp. 2d at 306 (quoting FE. Refractories Co., 187 F.R.D. at 505).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for their failure to serve Defendant. This case is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 28, 2023 (hee New York, New York [Ards 7 ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ieee Ane SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCH, —_______ DATE FILED: _12/28/2023 GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, 23-cv-07930 (ALC) -against- ORDER CLIPPER CONNECTION, LLC, Defendant. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint commencing this action against Defendant Clipper Connection, LLC but failed to serve Defendant with process in a timely manner. ECF No. 1. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). ECF No. 5. Plaintiff filed a timely response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and stated that “Plaintiff has attempted to reach the Defendant via phone and via process server” unsuccessfully and that “Plaintiff intends on attempting service via the Secretary of State.” Under the law of this Circuit, good cause exists to excuse a failure to timely serve a defendant only in “exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff's failure to serve process in a timely manner was the result of circumstances beyond its control." Ping Chen ex rel. U.S. vy. EMSL Analytical, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 282, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting FE. Refractories Co. v. Forty Eight Insulations, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)). The burden of proof to show good cause is a “heavy one,” Spinale v. United States, No. 03-CV-01704 (KMW) (JCF), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4608, 2005 WL 659150, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2005) (citation omitted), and “[a]n attorney’s inadvertence, neglect, mistake or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.” Ping Chen, 966 F. Supp. 2d at 306 (quoting FE. Refractories Co., 187 F.R.D. at 505).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for their failure to serve Defendant. This case is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 28, 2023 (hee New York, New York [Ards 7 ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gonzalez v. Clipper Connection, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-clipper-connection-llc-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack