Bonilla v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB
1:11-cv-04680
S.D.N.Y.Nov 27, 2012Background
- Bonilla, a pro se plaintiff, filed a trademark infringement suit against H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB on July 7, 2011 in the Southern District of New York.
- Magistrate Judge Cott directed service of the summons and complaint by November 4, 2011, under Rule 4(m).
- Cott later extended the deadline to December 5, 2011 and warned that failure to serve could lead to dismissal without prejudice.
- Bonilla did not file proof of service by December 5, 2011, and remained unserved, prompting a Report and Recommendation to dismiss under Rule 4(m).
- The district court adopted the Report, held no objections were filed, and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to serve, with no demonstrated good cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Rule 4(m) was proper. | Bonilla contends service was timely or good cause exists. | H&M argues plaintiff failed to serve within the extended deadline and did not show good cause. | Yes; dismissal without prejudice proper under Rule 4(m). |
| Whether the extension cured the service deficiency. | Extension preserved the action if service occurred later. | Extension did not cure lapse without proof of timely service. | No; extension did not result in timely service. |
| Whether lack of objections affects review of the Report. | Objections were not filed to preserve error. | Lack of objections does not prevent de novo review where objections are raised. | Adopts Report; no clear error on face of record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. Barnhart, 423 F. Supp. 2d 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (de novo review standards for objections to magistrate reports)
- Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (clear error standard when no objections are raised)
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (standard for partial de novo review by district court)
- Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (courts may adopt magistrate reports where no objections exist)
- Hernandez v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1983) (objection rules and deference to magistrate findings)