Bhagat v. Shah
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-01424
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bhagat v. Shah, Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky authorized Anuja Sharad Shah to serve Rushad Dordi through Attorney Andrew Miltenberg.
Defendant Anuja Sharad Shah may use the authorized alternative method to serve Rushad Dordi with a subpoena through Attorney Andrew Miltenberg.
What happened
In Bhagat v. Shah, the court addressed how Defendant Anuja Sharad Shah could serve a subpoena on Rushad Dordi.
The court found that the usual service methods under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308 were impracticable. It also found that sending the subpoena to Attorney Andrew Miltenberg was likely to reach Dordi.
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky authorized Shah to send Miltenberg the subpoena and a copy of the order, with instructions that Miltenberg send both documents to Dordi. The court also asked the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF 75.
The detailed version
- Bhagat v. Shah · No. 1:24-cv-01424
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
Defendant Anuja Sharad Shah sought permission to use an alternative method to serve a subpoena on Rushad Dordi. The opinion states that the other service methods listed in New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308 were impracticable. It also states that service on Attorney Andrew Miltenberg was likely to reach Dordi.
Ruling
The court found that Shah had adequately shown that alternative service was justified under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5). The court also found that sending the subpoena to Attorney Andrew Miltenberg was likely to reach Dordi. It therefore permitted Shah to serve Dordi by sending Miltenberg a copy of the subpoena and a copy of the order, with instructions that Miltenberg send the order and subpoena to Dordi.
Disposition
The court authorized the specified alternative service method. It also respectfully requested that the Clerk of Court terminate ECF 75. The order was signed by Robyn F. Tarnofsky, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.