Mullins v. Novatech

S.D. New York

Mullins v. Novatech

DecidedMay 10, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00824

StatusUnknown

This text of Mullins v. Novatech (Mullins v. Novatech) 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

Mullins v. Novatech, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X- : AVIS MULLINS, individually and on behalf of : all others similarly situated, : : Plaintiff, : 24-CV-00824 (VSB) : -against- : ORDER : NOVATECH, a foreign company, et al., : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Two days later, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff, however, has yet to request a summons, let alone file an affidavit of service. Plaintiff has likewise failed to take any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than May 15, 2024, 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 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: May 10, 2024 New York, New York ________________________________ 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- : AVIS MULLINS, individually and on behalf of : all others similarly situated, : : Plaintiff, : 24-CV-00824 (VSB) : -against- : ORDER : NOVATECH, a foreign company, et al., : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Two days later, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff, however, has yet to request a summons, let alone file an affidavit of service. Plaintiff has likewise failed to take any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than May 15, 2024, 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 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: May 10, 2024 New York, New York ________________________________ VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mullins v. Novatech, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-v-novatech-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack