Whitfield v. Landmark Infrastructure Partners LP

S.D. New York

Whitfield v. Landmark Infrastructure Partners LP

DecidedDecember 16, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-07731

StatusUnknown

This text of Whitfield v. Landmark Infrastructure Partners LP (Whitfield v. Landmark Infrastructure Partners LP) 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

Whitfield v. Landmark Infrastructure Partners LP, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED .. ee KX DOC#: DATE FILED: __12/16/21__ MATTHEW WHITFIELD, : Plaintiff, : : 21-CV-7731 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER LANDMARK INFRASTRUCTURE LP, et al., : Defendants. :

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Landmark Infrastructure LP, Steven M. Sonnenstein, Sadiq Malik, Thomas Carey White, III, Gerald Tywoniuk, and Keith Benson. (Doc. 1.) To date, Plaintiff has not obtained a summons, filed an affidavit of service, or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than December 27, 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.” Jd. (internal quotation marks omitted). “An attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.” Howard vy. 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: | December 16, 2021 if (| New York, New York | a AND D eden ad) 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 .. ee KX DOC#: DATE FILED: __12/16/21__ MATTHEW WHITFIELD, : Plaintiff, : : 21-CV-7731 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER LANDMARK INFRASTRUCTURE LP, et al., : Defendants. :

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Landmark Infrastructure LP, Steven M. Sonnenstein, Sadiq Malik, Thomas Carey White, III, Gerald Tywoniuk, and Keith Benson. (Doc. 1.) To date, Plaintiff has not obtained a summons, filed an affidavit of service, or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than December 27, 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.” Jd. (internal quotation marks omitted). “An attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.” Howard vy. 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: | December 16, 2021 if (| New York, New York | a AND D eden ad) VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Whitfield v. Landmark Infrastructure Partners LP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitfield-v-landmark-infrastructure-partners-lp-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack