Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Limited

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX PETER NIKOLA PESIC, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 23-CV-1100 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER MAURITIUS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION : CENTRE LTD., et al., : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Since being granted leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 75, Plaintiff has filed a steady stream of declarations, letters, and notices purporting to inform the Court about various actions by individual Defendants and seemingly unrelated third parties. See ECF Nos. 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. Plaintiff should refrain from such submissions unless there is a need for Court intervention or the Court has ordered Plaintiff to provide information. The Court also notes that, although Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint was filed over two months ago, see ECF No. 79, the docket does not show proof of service on any Defendant. Plaintiff should focus his efforts on service of his Complaint within the relevant deadlines; he otherwise risks dismissal of his suit for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“Ifa 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.”); see also USHA (India), Ltd. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 129, 133-34 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Although Rule 4(m) creates an exception for service in a foreign country ... this exception does not apply if. . . the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the defendant in the foreign country [within 90 days].”). SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2025 New York, New York ESSE RMAN nited States District Judge