ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOC #: DATE FILED:__ 12/6/24 ClOsUMUNIN Se ON OU Bane PW ht AO) aad □□ ISO E. 18 St., Suite PHR, New York, NY 10003 212 228-9795 www.gottlieblaw.net December 6, 2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Gregory H. Woods United States District Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Knowles v. Absorption Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Case No.: 1:24-cv-5943 Dear Judge Woods, The undersigned represents Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated (‘Plaintiff’) in the above referenced matter against Defendant, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, LLC, (“Defendant”). The undersigned respectfully requests that the Initial Conference scheduled for December 10, 2024, at 4:00 PM (Dkt. 5) be adjourned for 60 days because service has not yet been effectuated and Counsel for Defendant has not yet answered or appeared in this action. The undersigned sincerely apologizes for this late request; additionally, we respectfully request that we have an additional 30 days to effectuate service. Due to a clerical error, a request for issuance of summons was never filed in this action. The Defendant received courtesy copies of the Complaint, Summons, and Initial Conference Order and would not be prejudiced by this extension. This request will grant ample time for the Defendant to appear and discuss a possible resolution with Plaintiff’s Counsel. This is the Plaintiff’s first request for an extension. granted. Plaintiff's December 6, 2024 request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference and for an extension □ to effectuate service, Dkt. No. 7, is granted. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for December 10, 2024 is Respectfully submitted, to February 4, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. The joint status letter and proposed case management plan described in the August 6, 2024 order are due no later than January 28, 2024. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC Rule 4(m), the Court must extend the time to serve if plaintiff has shown good cause, and may extend the time to ; even in the absence of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) advisory committee’s note (1993 Amendments). The (s/Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. A, LaBollita Esq. Circuit has explicitly held that district courts have discretion to grant extensions of time for service of process Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. in the absence of good cause. Zapata v. City of New York,

(2d Cir. 2007). Here, Plaintiff's “clerical which caused delay in requesting issuance of summons, does not constitute good cause. A “delay in service from the mere inadvertence, neglect, or mistake of a litigant’s attorney does not constitute good cause.” Oyewok F. Supp. 3d 422, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), affd,

(2d Cir. 2019) (denying Plaintiff's second request extension of time to serve when counsel failed to actively monitor the process server’s performance). However, will exercise its discretion in this instance and will extend the time to effectuate service because this is Plaintiff's for an extension of time to effectuate service. The deadline for Plaintiff to effectuate service on Defendant in required by the Federal Rules is extended to December 23, 2024. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending at Dkt. No. 7.