Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc.

S.D. New York

Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc.

DecidedApril 3, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-10380

StatusUnknown

This text of Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc. (Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc.) 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

Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D ELO EC CU TM RE ON NT IC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/3/20 24 BRIAN COKE NG, Plaintiff, -against- 1: 23-cv-10380-MKV SEDGWICK CMS HOLDINGS, INC., SEDGWICK ORDER TO SERVE GLOBAL INC., SEDGWICK, INC., and SEDGWICK, L.P., Defendants. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff commenced this action on November 28, 2023 by filing a Complaint. [ECF No. 1]. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: If a defendant is not served within 90 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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. However, two days before Plaintiff’s 90-day period to serve Defendants had elapsed, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 4]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve Defendants and file proof of such service of the Amended Complaint on the docket by April 19, 2024. See Vaher v. Town of Orangetown, N.Y., 916 F. Supp. 2d 404, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”). If proof of service has not been filed by that date, and Plaintiff fails to show good cause why the time for service should be further extended, the Court will dismiss this case. Plaintiff is on notice that failure to comply with court orders and prosecute this case may result in dismissal with prejudice pursuant Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962).

SO ORDERED. | i / . Date: April 3, 2024 MARY RAY viskocig New York, NY United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D ELO EC CU TM RE ON NT IC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/3/20 24 BRIAN COKE NG, Plaintiff, -against- 1: 23-cv-10380-MKV SEDGWICK CMS HOLDINGS, INC., SEDGWICK ORDER TO SERVE GLOBAL INC., SEDGWICK, INC., and SEDGWICK, L.P., Defendants. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff commenced this action on November 28, 2023 by filing a Complaint. [ECF No. 1]. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: If a defendant is not served within 90 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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. However, two days before Plaintiff’s 90-day period to serve Defendants had elapsed, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 4]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve Defendants and file proof of such service of the Amended Complaint on the docket by April 19, 2024. See Vaher v. Town of Orangetown, N.Y., 916 F. Supp. 2d 404, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”). If proof of service has not been filed by that date, and Plaintiff fails to show good cause why the time for service should be further extended, the Court will dismiss this case. Plaintiff is on notice that failure to comply with court orders and prosecute this case may result in dismissal with prejudice pursuant Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962).

SO ORDERED. | i / . Date: April 3, 2024 MARY RAY viskocig New York, NY United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ng-v-sedgwick-cms-holdings-inc-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack