UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAMELA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, ORDER – against – 20 Civ. 4560 (ER) GHD PROFESSIONAL, NORTH AMERICA, INC., and JEMELLA LIMITED, Defendants. RAMOS, D.J.: Williams first filed her complaint in this case on June 15, 2020. Doc. 1. In an Order dated September 16, 2020, the Court noted that more than 90 days had passed and she had yet to file proof of service. Doc. 8. �e Court ordered Williams to serve GHD Professional and Jemella by October 16, 2020. Id. �is date has passed without a response. For the below reasons, the Court dismisses Williams’ action for failure to execute service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). Given that over 90 days have passed since the filing of the complaint in this action, and given that Williams has failed to respond to the Court’s warning of the consequences of failure to serve or provide good cause for the lack of service without response, the Court DISMISSES Williams’ action without prejudice.' The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate any pending motions and to close the case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2020 ite 2 hy ———— New York, New York + EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.

Williams’ 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,

(S.D.N-Y. 2012) (“The filing of an amended complaint . . . does not restart the [90] day period for service under Rule 4(m).”).