Nisbett v. The Nomadik Company ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT nnn nnn nnn nnn enn nnn nnn KK ELECTRONICALLY FILED . Hoc Plaintiff, : : 20-CV-10091 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER THE NOMADIK COMPANY, : Defendant. : wane eee KX VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant The Nomadik Company. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained a summons on December 3, 2020. (Doc. 4.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than March 15, 20201, 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.” /d. (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: March 8, 2021 i □□□ 0 . { ur ) New York, New York PLY DATO VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge