Kumar v. Babulal et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
NARESH KUMAR,
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
25-CV-4027 (NGG) (TAM)
Plaintiff,
-against-
JATIN BABULAL PRAJAPATI, HARDIK
KUMAR PATEL, HPJPA REALTY, LLC,
and RIVER SMOKE SHOP,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------X
TARYN A. MERKL, United States Magistrate Judge:
On July 21, 2025, Plaintiff Naresh Kumar (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Defendants Jatin Babulal Prajapati (“Prajapati”), Hardik Kumar Patel (“Patel”), HPJPA
Realty, LLC, and River Smoke Shop (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking damages for
an alleged breach of contract related to an $80,000 loan.1 Compl., ECF 1. Plaintiff failed
to file proposed summons until August 7, 2025, and August 19, 2025, following an order
from this Court.2 See Aug. 4, 2025 ECF Order (directing Plaintiff to file proposed
summons); Proposed Summons, ECF 5 (proposed summons as to Defendant Prajapati
only); Proposed Summons, ECF 7 (proposed summons as to all Defendants). On August
8, 2025, the Clerk of Court issued summons for Defendant Prajapati, and on August 21,
1 This case was initially assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge as the presiding
judge under the E.D.N.Y. Direct Assignment program, governed by Administrative Order 2025-
14. The Direct Assignment program requires the consent of all parties for the assigned
Magistrate Judge to preside over the case for the purpose of dispositive orders, including
dismissal under Rule 4(m). Given Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendants, on December 9, 2025,
the Clerk of Court was directed to re-assign the case to a District Judge.
2 Shortly after the Complaint was filed, the case was designated to participate in the
Court’s compulsory arbitration program. July 28, 2025 ECF Case Referral.
Case 1:25-cv-04027-NGG-TAM Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
2025, did the same for all Defendants, following the filing of Plaintiff’s revised proposed
summons. See ECF 6 (issuing summons as to Defendant Prajapati); ECF 8 (issuing
summons as to all Defendants). To date, despite multiple warnings, Plaintiff has not
filed proof of service. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 provides, in pertinent part, that:
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. But if the plaintiff shows good
cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Under Rule 4(m), Plaintiff was required to serve Defendants with
the complaint and summons by October 19, 2025. However, since filing this lawsuit on
July 21, 2025, Plaintiff has failed to file proper proof of service.
The Court has specifically directed Plaintiff to file proper proof of service three
times after the 90-day service deadline passed. First, on October 20, 2025, the Court
directed Plaintiff to file proof of service by November 3, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that
failure to do so may result in dismissal under Rule 4(m). See Oct. 20, 2025 ECF Order.
When Plaintiff failed to meet that deadline, on November 4, 2025, the Court again
directed Plaintiff to file proof of service or a request for an extension of time to serve by
November 18, 2025, and reiterated its warning about dismissal. See Nov. 4, 2025 ECF
Order. Finally, when Plaintiff again failed to respond to this extended deadline, the
Court issued a Final Order to Show Cause, warning that if Plaintiff did not file proof of
service or a status report by December 8, 2025, the Court would recommend that the
case be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). See Nov. 21, 2025 ECF Order.
Plaintiff again failed to file proof of service by the deadline. See generally Docket.
Case 1:25-cv-04027-NGG-TAM Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that this case be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
* 	* 	* 	* 	*
This Report and Recommendation will be filed electronically. Objections to this
Report and Recommendation must be filed, with a courtesy copy sent to the Honorable
Nicholas G. Garaufis at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201, within
fourteen (14) days of filing. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(a) (providing the method for computing time). Failure to file objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal both before the district court and
appellate courts. See, e.g., Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008)
(explaining that “failure to object timely to a . . . report [and recommendation] operates
as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate [judge’s] decision”
(quotation marks omitted)).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 10, 2025
_____________________________________
TARYN A. MERKL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-04027-NGG-TAM Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>