Order | Filed: July 06, 2026
| Entered: July 06, 2026
Davydov v. Midforest Partnership et al
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | New York Eastern
Order to Show Cause
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: On 6/20/2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint 1 , naming, inter alia, Defendants Kew Forest Property Management, Tower Insurance Company of New York, CastlePoint Insurance Company, and Oriental Bank of New York. On 12/4/2026, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint 48 , adding Defendant OneVesta Property Management as a party. On 1/21/2026, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint 75 , adding Defendants Gus Sfakianos and Popular Bank as parties, but does not appear to have filed proposed summons for these two Defendants. The Court further notes that summons were not requested in connection with the Second Amended Complaint at all, notwithstanding that multiple defendants included in the prior pleadings had never been served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) (providing that any "pleading filed after the original complaint" "must be served on every party"). The Court also notes that Defendant Kew Forest was not included in the proposed summons for the initial complaint (ECF 7 ) or the first amended complaint (ECF 67 ).
Plaintiff is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 to serve Defendants within 90 days after the complaint, or amended complaint(s), is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Importantly, the filing an amended complaint does not restart the Rule 4(m) service period and thereby provide an additional 90 days for service as to already named Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3); Hernandez v. Lira of New York Inc., No. 20-CV-4457 (RA), 2023 WL 2647639, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023) ("The filing of an amended complaint does not restart the 90 day period for service under Rule 4(m) with respect to defendants named in the original complaint.") (quotation marks and alterations omitted)). Adding a new party through an amended complaint, however, does initiate a new service period for the newly-added defendant(s). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). To date, it appears that Plaintiff has never submitted proposed summons for service of Kew Forest, Sfakianos, or Popular Bank and that Plaintiff has failed to file proof of service as to any the seven above-identified Defendants. See generally Docket. Additionally, as noted above, all parties must be served with any pleadings filed after the original complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). At this point, the 90 day window to serve has elapsed as to all of these Defendants.
As the Hon. Eric Komitee noted on 2/5/2026, "[t]he docket reflects no proper affidavit of service as to defendants OneVesta Property Management, Gus Sfakianos, Oriental Bank of New York, Popular Bank, CastlePoint Insurance Company, and Tower Insurance Company of New York." See Feb. 5, 2026 ECF Order; see generally Docket. And, as this Court has noted above, the same is true for Defendant Kew Forest Management. Notwithstanding Judge Komitee's observation, Plaintiff has taken no steps in the past five months to rectify this situation.
By 7/17/2026, Plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE as to why all of the seven Defendants who have not been served should not be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) ("If 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."). In the event Plaintiff cannot show good cause, this Court will recommend that Defendants Kew Forest Property Management, Tower Insurance Company of New York, CastlePoint Insurance Company, Oriental Bank of New York, OneVesta Property Management, Gus Sfakianos, and Popular Bank be dismissed.
In addition, in the original complaint filed on 6/20/2024, Plaintiff named, inter alia, Defendants Allied World Insurance Company, Pirozzi Management, and All Area Realty Management. On 7/22/2024, Plaintiff filed proof of service 10 , indicating that Defendant All Area Realty Management was served on 7/15/2024, via "Jane Doe," rendering its answer due 8/5... (truncated)
Order | Filed: June 29, 2026
| Entered: June 29, 2026
Norris v. Clintonville Cleaner Corporation et al
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other | New York Southern
Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE: COME NOW, Plaintiff, NAMEL NORRIS, and CLINTONVILLE CLEANER CORPORATION, a New York corporation, d/b/a CLINTONVILLE CLEANER, and MUNICH PRODUCTIONS INC., a New York corporation, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement and pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, who do hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the above-captioned action, with prejudice, with regard to all Defendants. Each party shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. The parties have stipulated to the dismissal of this action with prejudice under F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/29/2026) (tro)