Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-08319
StatusUnknown

This text of Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH (Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH) 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
Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : ZOETIS, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : 21-CV-8319(VSB) -against- : : ORDER BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM VETMEDICA, : GmbH, : : Defendant. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On October 8, 2021,Plaintiff filed this action against. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained a summons onOctober 12, 2021. (Doc. 5.) To date, Plaintiff hasnot filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than January 20, 2022, 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.” Id.(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 Defendant within ninety days after the complaint was filed will result in dismissal of this action. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2022 i % { .. ) New York, New York — VAIO Léa VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zoetis-inc-v-boehringer-ingelheim-vetmedica-gmbh-nysd-2022.