Opinion
00 Civ. 5597 (LAK)
April 5, 2002
ORDER
By order dated March 15, 2002, plaintiffs were directed to show cause, on or before March 25, 2002, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution insofar as it is brought against Afiwa, S.A., Jens Schlegelmilch, Peninsula Appreciation Inc., North American Consortium, Inc. and Iradj Vahabzadeh. No response having come to the Court's attention, the Court dismissed on that ground as to those defendants on April 4, 2002.
It now appears that plaintiffs moved, on March 25, 2002, for additional time within which to serve defendants Schlegelmilch and Vahabzadeh and for leave to serve a subpoena and also filed a memorandum in opposition to the order to show cause. Defendants' counsel filed papers in opposition. All counsel, however, ignored the Court's individual rules in that they failed to provide copies of the papers to chambers. The papers filed with the Clerk's office were not promptly docketed. Accordingly, the Court had no idea when it entered its April 4 order that any response had been made.
In the circumstances, the Court vacates the April 4, 2002 order and considers the matter anew in light of these papers. Counsel are warned, however, that the Court will not necessarily overlook failures to comply with its individual rules in the future. The Court requires submission of copies of filed papers to chambers because it seeks to rule promptly on matters before it whenever possible and is mindful of the fact that originals filed with the Clerk often are not docketed immediately and still more often do not find their way to chambers. In consequence, the Court henceforth reserves the right to decline to consider any papers that are not timely delivered to chambers.
It appears from plaintiffs' papers that Afiwa, S.A. has appeared in this action, that Peninsula Appreciation Inc., and North American Consortium, Inc. arguably have been served, and that purported proof of such service has been filed (Docket Item 19), although none of those facts is apparent from inspection of the caption on the docket sheet. There is no basis for dismissing as to those defendants for want of prosecution.
Plaintiffs concede that Schlegelmilch has not and Iradj Vahabzadeh may not have been served. They seek an additional 120 days in which to effect service or, alternatively, issuance of a subpoena in an effort to establish that their purported service on the latter was effective.
In all the circumstances, plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent that plaintiffs shall have until July 3, 2002 to effect service on these defendants and file proof thereof.
SO ORDERED.