HDI Global Insurance Company v. A. Duie Pyle Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
HDI GLOBAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
25-CV-3299 (NGG) (TAM)
Plaintiff,
-against-
A. DUIE PYLE INC. and EX-WORKS,
INC.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------X
TARYN A. MERKL, United States Magistrate Judge:
On June 12, 2025, Plaintiff HDI Global Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint against Defendants A. Duie Pyle Inc. and Ex-Works, Inc. (“Defendants”),
seeking a recovery under 49 U.S.C. § 147061 based on Defendants’ interstate delivery of
valves, which were alleged to have been damaged during shipping. Compl., ECF 1. On
that date, the Clerk of Court issued summons for Defendants.2 On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff
filed an executed waiver of service as to Defendant Ex-Works, Inc., rendering its answer
due September 9, 2025. ECF 6. On July 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a purported waiver of
service as to Defendant A. Duie Pyle Inc., which would have rendered its answer due
by September 22, 2025, except that it was executed only by Plaintiff’s counsel. ECF 7; see
Oct. 20, 2025 ECF Order.
1 The Court notes that the complaint cites 49 U.S.C. § 1470, but based on the nature of the
claim, the Court interprets this to be a case brought under the Carmack Amendment. Compl.,
ECF 1, ¶ 1.
2 Shortly after the Complaint was filed, the case was designated to participate in the
Court’s compulsory arbitration program. June 16, 2025 ECF Case Referral.
Case 1:25-cv-03299-NGG-TAM Document 14 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On September 24, 2025, the Court extended Defendants’ time to answer to
October 15, 2025, and directed Plaintiff to provide Defendants with a copy of the
Court’s Order by September 30, 2025, and to file proof of the same on ECF. Sept. 24,
2025 ECF Order. Plaintiff did not do so. Following the subsequent dismissal of
Defendant Ex-Works, Inc.,3 on October 20, 2025, the Court noted the deficiency in
Plaintiff’s purported waiver of service on Defendant A. Duie Pyle Inc., and ordered
Plaintiff to file proper proof of service on ECF by October 24, 2025. 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 Defendant A. Duie
Pyle Inc. with the complaint and summons by September 10, 2025. However, since filing
this lawsuit on June 12, 2025, Plaintiff has failed to file proper proof of service as to that
Defendant. See ECF 7 (unexecuted waiver of service); Sept. 24, 2025 ECF Order; Oct. 20,
2025 ECF Order; Oct. 27, 2025 ECF Order; Nov. 12, 2025 ECF Order.
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
observed that Plaintiff’s purported waiver of service was not executed by anyone other
3 See Letter Mot. for Pre-Mot. Conference, ECF 11 (indicating that Defendant Ex-Works,
Inc., intended to move to dismiss the complaint); Stipulation of Dismissal, ECF 12; Oct. 6, 2025
Order, ECF 13 (entering stipulation of dismissal as to Defendant Ex-Works, Inc.).
Case 1:25-cv-03299-NGG-TAM Document 14 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
than Plaintiff’s counsel, and directed Plaintiff to file proper proof of service for the
summons and complaint, the Court’s September 24, 2025 Order, and the Court’s
October 20, 2025 Order by October 24, 2025. Oct. 20, 2025 ECF Order. Then, when
Plaintiff failed to meet the October 24, 2025 deadline, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file
proof of service by November 10, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so could
result in dismissal for failure to serve under Rule 4(m) and for failure to prosecute
under Rule 41(b). Oct. 27, 2025 ECF Order (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), 41(b)). Finally,
when Plaintiff again failed to meet this extended deadline, the Court again warned
Plaintiff that failure to file proper service by December 3, 2025, would result in the
instant recommendation for failure to serve under Rule 4(m). Nov. 12, 2025 ECF Order.
Plaintiff again failed to file proof of service by the deadline. See generally Docket.
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
Case 1:25-cv-03299-NGG-TAM Document 14 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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-03299-NGG-TAM Document 14 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>