Opinion
20 Civ. 7270 (NRB)
09-13-2022
SIMCHA FELDMAN, YECHIEL SHUKRON, SHALOM KOLDETZKY, ARON BENISHU, ISRAEL HODER, MEIR FOGEL, RAPHAEL ARIEH, RACHAMIM BERACHA, TZVI LEFKOVITZ, SHLOMO KORITZ, TZVI ANSBACHER, RUCHAMA TOLEDANO, RAPHAEL BITAN, NAOR AMAR, ISRAEL BEN-EZRA, ARYEH LEVI, ELCHANAN ELMISHALI, and MEIR EDELSHTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. YECHEZKEL STRULOVITCH, CS CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC, GLAUBERS CHASIDISHA CLOTHING LLC, GLAUBERS QUALITY CLOTHING LLC, GLAUBERS TRADITIONAL CLOTHING LLC, 945 PARK PL LLC, 1078 DEKALB LLC, 74 VAN BUREN LLC, 454 CENTRAL AVENUE LLC, 980 ATLANTIC HOLDINGS LLC, PENN CONDIMINIUM LLC, THROOP HOME, LLC, EIGHTEEN PROPERTIES LLC, THE BUSHWICK PARTNERS LLC, BROOKLYN VENTURES LLC, THE HOWARD DAY HOUSE LLC, 196 ALBANY HOLDINGS L.P., CSN PARTNERS LP, KNICKERBOCKER LOFTS LLC, 1301 PUTNAM LLC, 741 LEXINGTON LLC, 296 COOPER LLC, WILLTROUT REALTY LLC, STAGG STUDIOS LLC, FIRST AVENUE REALTY HOLDINGS L.P., CSY HOLDINGS LLC, CAS MANAGEMENT COMPANY BAYSHORE, INC., 31 BROOKLYN LLC, 1035 FLUSHING AVE LLC, VICTORY BLVD ASSOCIATE LLC, SOI GROUP LLC, 945 WILLOUGHBY HOLDINGS LLC, 119 HOLDINGS LLC, WALLACE HOLDINGS LLC, 1642 EQUITIES LLC, BNH PROPERTIES LLC, HERMAN GREENFELD as trustee of GIVAS OLIM TRUST, MENDEL BRACH as trustee of GIVAS OLIM TRUST, TOMPKINS 420 REALTY LLC, WILLOUGHBY EQUITIES LLC, 186 LENOX LLC, 400 SOUTH 2ND STREET REALTIES L.P., WYKOFF SP LLC, 1428 FULTON ST LLC, PENN & MARCY LLC, 420 TOMPKINS, LLC, 599-601 WILLOUGHBY LLC, CS YH CONDOS LLC, LENOX 186 HOLDINGS LLC, LENOX 186 REALTY LLC, 400 SOUTH 2ND STREET HOLDINGS L.P., R.P.S. PROPERTIES LLC, FULTON STREET HOLDINGS LLC, 908 BERGEN STREET LLC, 901 BUSHWICK AVENUE LLC, GATES EQUITY HOLDINGS LLC, 853 LEXINGTON LLC, 348 ST. NICHOLAS LLC, 762 WILLOUGHBY LLC, 855 DEKALB AVENUE LLC, THE BRIDGE TOWER LLC, 619 HOLDINGS LLC, GRAND SUITES LLC, CATALPA DEVELOPMENT, LLC, SLOPE OFFICES LLC, 41-49 SPENCER LLC, 482-484 SENECA LLC, 1217 BEDFORD LLC, 1266 PACIFIC LLC, MYRTLINO HOLDINGS, LLC, 259 BERRY LLC, and 261 BERRY LLC, Defendants.
ORDER
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs have failed to serve eleven defendants with their Third Amended Complaint within the 90 days mandated by Rule 4(m) nor sought any extension thereof. In fact, 334 days have passed since the Third Amended Complaint was filed without service thereof. Thus, in its Order of August 25, 2022, this Court directed plaintiffs to show cause why the Third Amended Complaint should not be dismissed.
Plaintiffs claim that their efforts to negotiate an agreement to arbitrate with other defendants that resulted in a stay of the claims against those other defendants, who agreed to arbitrate constitutes “good cause” for their failure to serve these defendants who were not involved in these negotiations and to whom the stay does not apply, is legal nonsense. Beyond the obvious legal flaw in the argument, plaintiffs own actions demonstrate that they do not believe their argument: plaintiffs never suggested that the “stay” prevented yet other defendants from moving to dismiss their complaint.
Finally, plaintiffs request that the dismissal be without prejudice does not acknowledge that any effort to serve defendants would be fruitless as the claims would be barred by the statute of limitations for the reasons we have already set forth at pages 11 to 18 of our August 17, 2022 Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 128.
SO ORDERED.