Opinion
22 Civ. 975 (JPC)
06-09-2022
CARMINE P. AMELIO and ALFONSO AMELIO, Plaintiffs, v. GALIA HOURI, EYAL RONEN, UNKNOWN FEMALE TRESPASSER “NEVO”, NICHOLAS BLASONE, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, MAX REINHARDT, RICHARD SEMEGRAM, LEIROZE MIZRAHI, and INSTALOCK LOCKSMITH 304 INC, Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN P. CRONAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
The Complaint in this action was filed on February 3, 2022, Dkt. 1, and the Amended Complaint was filed on March 10, 2022, Dkt. 5. Defendants have not appeared in this action, and the docket does not reflect whether Defendants have been served. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[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).
Plaintiffs are ordered to file a status letter by June 21, 2022, describing (1) whether service of the summons and Amended Complaint has been made on Defendants, and (2) if service has not been effected on Defendants, whether Plaintiffs request an extension of time to serve Defendants. If Plaintiffs request an extension of time to effect service, Plaintiffs shall include in their letter an explanation of why there is good cause to excuse their failure to serve Defendants within the 90-day deadline set by Rule 4(m). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (“[I]f the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”). If service of the summons and Amended Complaint has been made on Defendants, Plaintiffs must file proof of service on the docket no later than June 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully direct to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiffs and note service on the docket.
SO ORDERED.