Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLJ Rest. Corp. d/b/a Nicks Pizza and Dimitrios Levantis

S.D. New York

Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLJ Rest. Corp. d/b/a Nicks Pizza and Dimitrios Levantis

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 18, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-04885·Unknown

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ----------------------------------------------------------X : LEONEL CASTANEDA LORENZO, : individually and on behalf of others similarly : situated, : : 25-CV-4885 (VSB) Plaintiff, : : ORDER -against- : : PLJ REST. CORP. d/b/a NICKS PIZZA and : DIMITRIOS LEVANTIS, : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On June 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained summonses on June 11, 2025. (Docs. 5, 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed affidavits of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than October 1, 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: September 18, 2025 iV tl f a New York, New York XSYUTMO VAIO ae VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

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

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ----------------------------------------------------------X : LEONEL CASTANEDA LORENZO, : individually and on behalf of others similarly : situated, : : 25-CV-4885 (VSB) Plaintiff, : : ORDER -against- : : PLJ REST. CORP. d/b/a NICKS PIZZA and : DIMITRIOS LEVANTIS, : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On June 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained summonses on June 11, 2025. (Docs. 5, 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed affidavits of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than October 1, 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: September 18, 2025 iV tl f a New York, New York XSYUTMO VAIO ae VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLJ Rest. Corp. d/b/a Nicks Pizza and Dimitrios Levantis, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLJ Rest. Corp. d/b/a Nicks Pizza and Dimitrios Levantis (Leonel Castaneda Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLJ Rest. Corp. d/b/a Nicks Pizza and Dimitrios Levantis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related