Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kate Spade v. Vinci, Judge Figueredo denied ACS’s motion to compel because the subpoena was served on the wrong entity.
ACS Group Acquisitions, LLC and the nonparty Chase entities affected by the subpoena, particularly JP Morgan Chase & Co. and JP Morgan Chase Bank.
What happened
In Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC, ACS Group Acquisitions asked the court to require JP Morgan Chase & Co. to produce documents under a subpoena. The subpoena named JP Morgan Chase & Co., but it was served on JP Morgan Chase Bank, a different entity.
The court ruled that the subpoena had to be delivered to the entity named in it. Because JP Morgan Chase & Co. was not properly served, the court lacked authority over that nonparty to force compliance. The court did not address whether the subpoena was burdensome or otherwise proper.
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied ACS’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena. The court said ACS may file a new motion seeking compliance with a later subpoena addressed to JP Morgan Chase Bank, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05409
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
ACS Group Acquisitions, LLC moved to compel JP Morgan Chase & Co. to produce documents in response to a subpoena. The subpoena named JP Morgan Chase & Co. and was served on CT Corporation System, its registered agent. The affidavit of service, however, stated that the subpoena was served on JP Morgan Chase Bank.
Nonparties JP Morgan Chase & Co., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, collectively called Chase in the opinion, opposed the motion. Chase argued that ACS had not served the entity named in the subpoena. Chase also stated that ACS later served an identical subpoena addressed to JP Morgan Chase Bank, which Chase identified as the appropriate entity for the records. ACS’s motion sought compliance with the earlier subpoena addressed to JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Ruling
The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 required ACS to serve the entity named in the subpoena from which it sought compliance. Serving JP Morgan Chase Bank did not properly serve JP Morgan Chase & Co. Because the named entity had not been properly served, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over JP Morgan Chase & Co. to compel its compliance. The court did not reach the merits of the subpoena or decide whether it was unduly burdensome.
Disposition
The court denied ACS’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena at ECF No. 453-2. ACS may refile its motion and seek compliance with the later subpoena addressed to JP Morgan Chase Bank. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 453.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.