Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc.

S.D. New York

Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 28, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-01670·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ws i

PHIL NEUMAN, : DATE FILED: _ 5/28/2021 Plaintiff, : : 21-CV-1670 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER GLOBAL SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC. and: WERNER HELLMANN, : Defendants. :

wane eee KX VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Global Security Solutions, Inc. (“Global”) and Werner Hellmann (“Hellmann”) (collectively, “Defendants”. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained summons as to Global and Hellmann on February 26, 2021. (Does. 6 and 7, respectively.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than June 4, 2021, 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.” /d. (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: May 28, 2021 i ie on New York, New York fy f □

Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ws i

PHIL NEUMAN, : DATE FILED: _ 5/28/2021 Plaintiff, : : 21-CV-1670 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER GLOBAL SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC. and: WERNER HELLMANN, : Defendants. :

wane eee KX VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Global Security Solutions, Inc. (“Global”) and Werner Hellmann (“Hellmann”) (collectively, “Defendants”. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained summons as to Global and Hellmann on February 26, 2021. (Does. 6 and 7, respectively.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than June 4, 2021, 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.” /d. (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: May 28, 2021 i ie on New York, New York fy f □

Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc. (Neuman v. Global Security Solutions, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related