J.M. v. New York City Public Schools

S.D. New York

J.M. v. New York City Public Schools

DecidedOctober 4, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-05083

StatusUnknown

This text of J.M. v. New York City Public Schools (J.M. v. New York City Public Schools) 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

J.M. v. New York City Public Schools, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X- : J.M., ., : : Plaintiffs, : : 24-CV-5083 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER New York City Public Schools, : : Defendant. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On July 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained a summons on July 8, 2024. (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 October 18, 2024, 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. Dated: October 4, 2024 hy . Lf ft New York, New York BAAS a gy 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- : J.M., ., : : Plaintiffs, : : 24-CV-5083 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER New York City Public Schools, : : Defendant. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On July 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained a summons on July 8, 2024. (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 October 18, 2024, 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. Dated: October 4, 2024 hy . Lf ft New York, New York BAAS a gy VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

J.M. v. New York City Public Schools, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jm-v-new-york-city-public-schools-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack