IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 6:12-CV-1698 (NAM/DEP)

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case: 3:18-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No. 8:08-CV-1465-T-33TBM ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Plaintiffs, Defendants. INTRODUCTION. This action was commenced in The complaint alleged that thirteen defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant. 40 Beaver Street Daniel Jacobs, Esq. 111 Washington Avenue Michael D. Billok, Esq. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 613 Filed 05/07/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case VFP Doc 943 Filed 04/04/17 Entered 04/04/17 14:35:26 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 2

Defendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action

Plaintiff, Defendant. Plaintiff Troy Cordell ( plaintiff ) brings this action against Unisys Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

REPORT, RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER. This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 382 Filed: 03/08/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:7778

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV DT DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL D.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION. v. Judge Michael R. Barrett ORDER & OPINION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-704-T-33TBM ORDER

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Airlines, Inc., and Transport Workers Union Local 501

Case 1:16-cv JPO Document 108 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 9. : : Plaintiffs, : : : Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DECISION and ORDER. Before the Court is Defendants renewed motion to dismiss this matter involving

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:05-cv BAF-WC Document 34 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 22 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

Case 4:16-cv JSW Document 32 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:18-cv AET-LHG Document 61 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 972 : : : : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

03-CV-0868(Sr) DECISION AND ORDER. Plaintiff Henry James, proceeding pro se, has submitted a request (Dkt.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. V. No. 3:15-cv-818-D-BN

: : Plaintiff Bruno Pierre ( Plaintiff ) filed this diversity action against Defendants Hilton

Case 1:14-cv DPG Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2018 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 1:13-cv RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88

Case 3:17-cv JAG Document 41 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 258

United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

DECISION AND ORDER. This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara,

Case 1:13-cv TSC-DAR Document 104 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:15-cv LDD Document 54 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:16-cv GTS Document 14 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 12

Case 1:09-cv RWR Document 17 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff United States of America ( plaintiff ) commenced this action seeking payment for the indebtedness of

Case 5:05-cv NAM-DEP Document 133 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 8. Plaintiffs, Defendant. Counterclaim Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendants.

Case5:12-cv HRL Document9 Filed08/09/12 Page1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. No SLR ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case: 1:06-cv SL Doc #: 266 Filed: 08/23/10 1 of 5. PageID #: 8484

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION. v. C.A. NO. C

Case 1:11-cv GBL -TRJ Document 4 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 349

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHARON COBB, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 7:16-cv KMK Document 87 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 7

Bile v. RREMC, LLC Denny's Restaurant et al Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No. 8:19-cv-582-T-36AEP ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff, v. 11-CV-6483T. Defendants. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Joellen Petrillo ( Petrillo ) brings this action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. v. : Case No. 2:08-cv-31 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. District of Oregon. Plaintiff(s), vs. Case No: 6:07-CV-6149-HO. Defendant(s). Civil Case Assignment Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 2:06-cr DB Document 98 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Case 2:14-cv R-RZ Document 52 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:611

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv RSM Document 60 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 8 Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez

Case 1:18-cv BKS-ATB Document 32 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 9. Plaintiffs, Defendants. For Defendants:

Case 1:17-cv MGC Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2018 Page 1 of 21

Case 1:15-cv JSR Document 144 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 8

Transcription:

Rapp v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARTHUR C. RAPP, JR., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 6:12-CV-1698 (NAM/DEP) v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants. APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FOR PLAINTIFF: LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC 499 South Warren St. Suite 500B Syracuse, NY 13202 LEWIS G. SPICER, ESQ. FOR DEFENDANTS: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP NITIN SHARMA, ESQ. 502 Carnegie Center RENE M. JOHNSON, ESQ. Princeton, NJ 08540 ORDER Plaintiff Arthur C. Rapp, Jr., commenced this action on November 18, 2012, against several defendants including, inter alia, Ken Jones. Dkt. No. 1. An amended complaint was subsequently filed by the plaintiff on December 30, 2012. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff's complaint, as amended, alleges discrimination on the basis of disability, retaliation, and Dockets.Justia.com

constructive discharge, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12,101, et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Executive Law Section 290, et seq. See generally id. On January 22, 2013, the court issued a text notice pointing out that none of the defendants had yet appeared in the action and advising plaintiff's counsel to file a letter motion requesting an extension of time to serve the summons and amended complaint, if necessary. Text Notice Dated 1/22/13. In response, plaintiff's counsel submitted a letter request, dated January 28, 2013, asking that the time for serving the defendants in the action be extended until March 21, 2013. Dkt. No. 7. I granted that request, in part, extending the time to serve the defendants to February 28, 2013. Text Order Dated 1/29/13. In response to plaintiff's amended complaint, defendants Prudential Financial, Inc., Mathew Dauksza, and Michael McGill, all of whom have been served in the action, filed a motion to dismiss all of plaintiff's claims for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. Nos. 16, 17. As a result, the pretrial conference scheduled to be held by this court on March 21, 2013, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was adjourned without date. Text Scheduling Notice Dated 3/14/13. Senior District Judge Norman A. Mordue issued a decision on March 7, 2014, granting the pending dismissal motions, in part, and 2

directing that all claims against defendants Matthew Dauksza and Michael McGill be dismissed. Dkt. No. 33. Based upon the issuance of that decision, a Rule 16 conference in the case has now been set for May 8, 2014. Despite the pendency of this action since November 2012, defendant Ken Jones has yet to be served or appear in the action. Accordingly, the court issued an order on March 10, 2014, directing that plaintiff show cause why his claims against defendant Jones should not be dismissed based upon his failure to effectuate service upon that defendant in a timely fashion. Text Order to Show Cause Dated 3/10/14. In response, plaintiff's counsel, Lewis G. Spicer, Esq., has submitted an affirmation indicating that the process server retained to effectuate service has been unable to locate defendant Jones despite several attempts during January and February 2013. Dkt. No. 34 at 1-2. In that affirmation, plaintiff's counsel requested an extension of time, of an unspecified duration, to serve defendant Jones with the summons and amended complaint. Id. at 2-3. Defendant Prudential Financial, Inc., has since submitted a letter requesting that plaintiff's claims against defendant Jones be dismissed. Dkt. No. 35. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a party be served within one hundred twenty days of issuance of the 3

summons, absent a court order extending that period. 1 In the event that a party seeks an extension of that time period, "where good cause is shown, the court has no choice but to extend the time for service, and the inquiry is ended." Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Indus. Corp., 94 F.3d 338, 340 (7th Cir. 1996). "If, however, good cause does not exist, the court may, in its discretion, either dismiss the action without prejudice or direct that service be effected within a specified time." Panaras, 94 F.3d at 340 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)); see also Zapata v. City of New York, 502 F.3d 192, 196 (2d Cir. 2007) ("[D]istrict courts have the discretion to grant extensions of the service period even where there is no good cause shown[.]"); Romandette v. Weetabix Co., Inc., 807 F.2d 309, 311 (2d Cir. 1986). When examining whether to extend the prescribed period for service, a district court is afforded ample discretion to weigh the "overlapping equitable considerations" involved in determining whether good cause exists, and whether an extension may be granted in its absence. Zapata, 1 Specifically, Rule 4(m) provides that, [i]f a defendant is not served within 120 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... or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period[.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The court's local rules of practice shorten the time for service from the 120 day period under Rule 4(m) to sixty days. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 4.1(b). 4

502 F.3d at 197. In this case, the court has serious doubts that plaintiff's affirmation establishes good cause to extend the deadline to serve defendant Jones in this action. In light of the fact that a rule 16 conference has not yet occurred, and discovery in the action has not yet commenced, however, plaintiff will be given one final opportunity to effectuate service upon defendant Jones no later than April 30, 2014. If, however, the defendant is not served by that date, I will recommend that plaintiff's claims against him be dismissed, without prejudice. Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to effectuate service of the summons and amended complaint in this action upon defendant Ken Jones no later than April 30, 2014. Dated: March 21, 2014 Syracuse, New York 5