Williams v. Carty

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: July 1, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-02684
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 7/1/2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------X ALONZO WILLIAMS, RHYTHM CITY : ENTERTAINMENT, : : Plaintiffs, : 1:20-cv-2684-GHW -against- : : ORDER DANIELLE CARTY, GIOVANESSA : RODRIQUEZ, JANE DOES 1-24, : : : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------------X

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs Alonzo Williams and Rhythm City Entertainment filed this action on March 31, 2020. See Dkt. No. 1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Reid ex rel. Roz B. v. Freeport Pub. Sch. Dist., 89 F. Supp. 3d 450, 455 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (“[C]ourts in this circuit have generally interpreted Rule 4(m) to require plaintiffs to [file proof of service] within the . . . [90]–day period.”). As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs has failed to file proof of service as to any defendant in this matter. Accordingly, by July 6, 2020, Plaintiffs are directed to either file proof of service or to show cause why Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to serve process within the time allowed by Rule 4(m). Plaintiffs are further directed to serve a copy of this order on all Defendants and to retain proof of service. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 1, 2020 Jer WW L2ved GRE HH. WOODS United States District Judge