Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida

S.D. New York

Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-07284

StatusUnknown

This text of Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida) 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

Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X : FABIO GUIDETTI and VICTORIA : GRANTHAM, : : Plaintiffs, : 22-CV-7284 (VSB) : -against- : ORDER : AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE : COMPANY OF FLORIDA, : : Defendant. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On August 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant. (Doc. 1) Plaintiffs obtained a summons on September 8, 2022. (Doc. 4.) To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than December 8, 2022, Plaintiffs 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)). Plaintiffs are warned that failure to submit a letter and to demonstrate good cause for failure to serve Defendant within ninety days after the complaint was filed will result in dismissal of this action. SO ORDERED. j f Dated: November 30, 2022 A ree l case [ Ps □ New York, New York Vi AN) JATQMS Leg 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 : FABIO GUIDETTI and VICTORIA : GRANTHAM, : : Plaintiffs, : 22-CV-7284 (VSB) : -against- : ORDER : AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE : COMPANY OF FLORIDA, : : Defendant. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On August 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant. (Doc. 1) Plaintiffs obtained a summons on September 8, 2022. (Doc. 4.) To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than December 8, 2022, Plaintiffs 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)). Plaintiffs are warned that failure to submit a letter and to demonstrate good cause for failure to serve Defendant within ninety days after the complaint was filed will result in dismissal of this action. SO ORDERED. j f Dated: November 30, 2022 A ree l case [ Ps □ New York, New York Vi AN) JATQMS Leg VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Guidetti v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guidetti-v-american-bankers-insurance-company-of-florida-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack