Williams v. GHD Professional, North America, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAMELA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others individually situated, Plaintiff, ORDER ~ against — 20 Civ. 4560 (ER) GHD PROFESSIONAL, NORTH AMERICA, INC. and JEMELLA LIMITED, Defendants.

RAMOS, D.J.: Williams filed her complaint in this case on June 15, 2020. Doc. 1. More than 90 days later, she has yet to file proof of service with the Court. Accordingly, Williams is ordered to serve GHD Professional and Jemella by October 16, 2020. If she does not, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).!

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2020 ye } New York, New York pee + \ x EDGARDO RAMos, U.S.D.J. ' Her filing of an amended complaint on September 14, 2020, Doc. 5, is irrelevant to the Rule 4(m) analysis. See, e.g., Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 893 F. Supp. 2d 598, 607 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“The filing of an amended complaint . . . does not restart the [90] day period for service under Rule 4(m).’)