Horizon Group USA, Inc. v. Innovative Designs, LLC

S.D. New York

Horizon Group USA, Inc. v. Innovative Designs, LLC

DecidedJuly 29, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-01241

StatusUnknown

This text of Horizon Group USA, Inc. v. Innovative Designs, LLC (Horizon Group USA, Inc. v. Innovative Designs, 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

Horizon Group USA, Inc. v. Innovative Designs, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : HORIZON GROUP USA, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : 22 Civ. 1241 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER : INNOVATIVE DESIGNS, LLC, : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 14, 2022, see Dkt. 1, but the docket reflects that the complaint was never served on Defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Under Rule 4(m), “notice to the plaintiff must be given prior to a sua sponte dismissal.” Thompson v. Maldonado, 309 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2002). So on May 24, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to advise the Court by May 31, 2022 “why plaintiff has failed to serve the summons and complaint within the 90-day period, or, if the defendant has been served, when and in what manner such service was made.” Dkt. 6. The Court warned Plaintiff that “[i]f the Court does not receive a letter by May 31, 2022, showing good cause why such service was not made within the 90 days, the Court will dismiss the case.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has neither filed the required the letter showing good cause why service was not made nor filed proof of service on the docket. Because Plaintiff has not shown good cause to excuse its failure to comply with Rule 4(m), the Court dismisses this case without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to enter judgment. SO ORDERED. Wa Dated: July 28, 2022 Lin 2 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

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

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : HORIZON GROUP USA, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : 22 Civ. 1241 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER : INNOVATIVE DESIGNS, LLC, : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 14, 2022, see Dkt. 1, but the docket reflects that the complaint was never served on Defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Under Rule 4(m), “notice to the plaintiff must be given prior to a sua sponte dismissal.” Thompson v. Maldonado, 309 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2002). So on May 24, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to advise the Court by May 31, 2022 “why plaintiff has failed to serve the summons and complaint within the 90-day period, or, if the defendant has been served, when and in what manner such service was made.” Dkt. 6. The Court warned Plaintiff that “[i]f the Court does not receive a letter by May 31, 2022, showing good cause why such service was not made within the 90 days, the Court will dismiss the case.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has neither filed the required the letter showing good cause why service was not made nor filed proof of service on the docket. Because Plaintiff has not shown good cause to excuse its failure to comply with Rule 4(m), the Court dismisses this case without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to enter judgment. SO ORDERED. Wa Dated: July 28, 2022 Lin 2 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Horizon Group USA, Inc. v. Innovative Designs, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horizon-group-usa-inc-v-innovative-designs-llc-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack