Perez v. Evans
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-00356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. Evans, Judge Netburn extended the government defendants’ response deadline and explained how Perez could serve the remaining individual and corporate defendants.
The order affects Eric Andrew Perez, the government defendants, Mark J. Mulligan, Astra Zeneca LP, Astra Zeneca AB, and Astra Zeneca UK Lmdt by setting the government defendants’ response deadline and explaining how the other defendants may be served.
What happened
In Perez v. Evans, the government defendants had been served with the amended complaint on May 13, 2024, and said they would not challenge service. The plaintiff also reported that several other defendants claimed they had not been properly served.
The court extended the government defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to August 26, 2024. It instructed Perez to personally serve Mark J. Mulligan and explained acceptable methods for serving the domestic Astra Zeneca entity and the foreign entities Astra Zeneca AB and Astra Zeneca UK Lmdt.
The order allowed service on the foreign entities through registered mail or each country’s Central Authority, required proper proof of service, and allowed Perez to use a process server. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order on July 2, 2024.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Evans · No. 1:24-cv-00356
- Vernon Broderick
- July 2, 2024
Background
The plaintiff, Eric Andrew Perez, brought the case against Dr. Neil C. Evans and other defendants. During a June 26, 2024 conference, the parties addressed service of the amended complaint.
The United States government defendants had been served on May 13, 2024. The United States Attorney’s Office stated that it did not intend to dispute service. Perez also told the court that counsel for Mark J. Mulligan, Astra Zeneca LP, Astra Zeneca AB, and Astra Zeneca UK Lmdt had said those defendants were not properly served.
Court’s Instructions
The court extended the government defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint to August 26, 2024.
The court directed Perez to attempt personal service on Mulligan. Under the methods described in the order, a process server—not Perez—could personally deliver the summons and complaint, leave copies at Mulligan’s dwelling with an adult resident, or deliver the documents to an agent authorized to accept service.
For the domestic Astra Zeneca entity, the court stated that service could be made by delivering the summons and complaint to an officer, managing or general agent, or other authorized agent and mailing a copy to the defendant. The order stated that Perez might need to locate an individual or entity authorized to accept service, possibly the Delaware Secretary of State.
For the foreign entities, the court explained that the Hague Service Convention provides the exclusive means of service because the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden are signatories. The order stated that service could be made through each country’s Central Authority or, because neither Sweden nor the United Kingdom objected to direct postal service, by registered mail through an official mail carrier with return service requested. Perez was required to submit proper proof of service.
Disposition
The court extended the government defendants’ response deadline and provided instructions for serving the non-government defendants. The order also stated that Perez could use a process server to help with service. Sarah Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge, entered the order on July 2, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.