Lopez v. Fluxpace Design & Build LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-07605
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lopez v. Fluxpace, Judge Carter denied Lopez’s motion to serve Victor Sierra through his attorneys without prejudice and requested an update after a bankruptcy filing.
Juan Lopez, Victor Sierra, Fluxpace Design & Build LLC, and the other defendants identified in the case; the order directly addressed Lopez’s requested method of serving Sierra.
What happened
In Lopez v. Fluxpace Design & Build LLC, Juan Lopez asked to serve individual defendant Victor Sierra through Sierra’s attorneys because process servers had not served him. Lopez’s filing said the attorneys’ office shared Sierra’s registered address and that counsel had represented Sierra intended to evade service and default.
Lopez argued that alternative service was allowed because ordinary service was impracticable and Sierra had actual and constructive notice of the lawsuit. The filing relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and New York service rules.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Lopez’s motion without prejudice. He ordered Lopez to tell the court by October 2, 2024, how or whether the case should proceed in light of the defendants’ recent filing of a suggestion of bankruptcy.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Fluxpace Design & Build LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07605
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 24, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Juan Lopez asked for permission to serve individual defendant Victor Sierra through Sierra’s attorneys of record, Migir Ilganayev of Ilganayev Law Firm and/or Reza Yassi of Yassi Law P.C. The filing stated that process servers had not served Sierra and that Lopez’s counsel had conducted searches of public records and court filings. It identified Sierra’s registered address as 139 Fulton Street, #801, New York, New York 10038, and stated that this was also the office address used by Ilganayev’s law firm.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Lopez relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which addresses the deadline for serving a defendant and permits extensions in some circumstances. He also cited New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5), which allows a court to direct another method of service when the usual methods are impracticable. The filing asserted that Sierra had actual and constructive notice of the lawsuit. It also reported that, at a September 12, 2024 status conference, Ilganayev represented that Sierra had instructed him to evade service, purposefully default, and otherwise not substantively participate. These statements were presented in Lopez’s filing.
Ruling
The court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. The court did not authorize service through Sierra’s attorneys in the order quoted here. Instead, the court ordered Plaintiff to inform the court of Plaintiff’s position on how or whether the case should proceed in light of the defendants’ recent filing of a suggestion of bankruptcy. The court required that filing by October 2, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.