Sookul v. Oroboro, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-00675
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sookul v. Oroboro, Judge Abrams required amended proof of service before deciding Sookul’s default-judgment motion because service was unclear.
Sanjay Sookul must provide amended proof of service and supporting documents by April 22, 2025; Oroboro, Inc.’s service and the pending default-judgment request remain unresolved.
What happened
In Sookul v. Oroboro, Inc., Sanjay Sookul asked the court to enter a default judgment against Oroboro, Inc. in a lawsuit involving a proposed class and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York laws.
The court found problems with the proof of service. The process server did not say whether the complaint or a notice was delivered. The attached notice described the case as involving unpaid consumer debt, which did not match the claims in the complaint. The affidavit also did not explain whether “Jane Doe,” who accepted the documents, was an employee or authorized to accept service for Oroboro.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not yet decide the default-judgment motion. Instead, she ordered Sookul to submit amended proof of service and a letter explaining why service was valid, with all relevant documents, by April 22, 2025.
The detailed version
- Sookul v. Oroboro, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00675
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
Sanjay Sookul filed this action on behalf of himself and a proposed class of individuals against Oroboro, Inc. The complaint asserts a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related claims under New York State and New York City laws. Sookul later moved for default judgment.
Before deciding a default-judgment motion, the court must ensure that the defendant was properly served and that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Sookul filed a process server’s affidavit stating that service occurred on February 27, 2024, and attached a New York form titled “Additional Notice of Lawsuit.” Because that form was attached, the court evaluated the sufficiency of service under New York law.
Service Problems Identified by the Court
The court found the proof of service unclear in two ways.
First, the affidavit stated only that the process server “delivered the documents.” It did not specify whether the documents included a copy of the complaint or a notice describing the action. New York law requires, at a minimum, service of a summons and notice. The attached notice stated that Oroboro was being sued for an “unpaid consumer debt,” while the complaint asserted disability-related and state and city law claims. The court therefore questioned whether the notice was served with the summons and, if it was, whether it adequately informed Oroboro of the nature of the action.
Second, the affidavit did not establish that the documents were delivered to someone authorized to accept service for Oroboro. It said that the documents were delivered at Oroboro’s corporate address at 9 p.m. to “jane doe,” who identified herself as authorized to accept service. The affidavit did not state Jane Doe’s position, explain why that position authorized her to accept service, or even state that she was an Oroboro employee. The court therefore questioned whether the process server reasonably relied on her representation.
Order
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered Sookul to submit amended proof of service no later than April 22, 2025. Sookul’s counsel must also submit a letter explaining why service was properly completed and attach all relevant documents, including every document served on Oroboro. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment and did not decide the merits of Sookul’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.