Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 15, 2025

Federal National Mortgage Association v. JDM Washington Street LLC

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:25-cv-01728
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Federal National Mortgage Association v. JDM Washington Street LLC: Judge Liman denied JDM’s motion challenging personal jurisdiction and service.

Who this affects

Federal National Mortgage Association and JDM Washington Street LLC; the ruling rejected JDM’s challenges to personal jurisdiction and service.

What happened

In Federal National Mortgage Association v. JDM Washington Street LLC, JDM Washington Street LLC asked the court to dismiss the complaint for lack of authority over it and improper service of legal papers.

The court found that the complaint alleged sufficient facts for authority over JDM, including that JDM is a New York limited liability company located in New York and agreed to jurisdiction and venue in New York. The court also found that the summons and complaint were personally delivered to an authorized employee. The court said JDM’s separate objection concerning papers related to an order to show cause did not concern formal service of the summons and complaint, and that JDM had at least substantially complied with the court’s directive and received actual notice.

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to dismiss and directed the clerk to close the motion. JDM had also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but the opinion says JDM withdrew that request before the ruling.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Federal National Mortgage Association v. JDM Washington Street LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01728
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Apr. 15, 2025

Background

JDM Washington Street LLC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service. The opinion also notes that JDM had moved under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, but withdrew that part of its motion in its reply memorandum filed April 11, 2025. The court ruled on the personal-jurisdiction and service issues.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court explained that, without an evidentiary hearing, Federal National Mortgage Association needed to make a preliminary showing through its pleadings and affidavits that personal jurisdiction existed. The complaint alleged that JDM is a New York limited liability company located in New York, New York. It also alleged that JDM was party to a Loan Agreement and a Reimbursement Agreement containing provisions consenting to jurisdiction and venue in New York. The court stated that any argument that it lacked personal jurisdiction over JDM was entirely without merit.

Service of Process

The court found that Federal National Mortgage Association established proper service. On March 7, 2025, a service provider personally delivered the summons, verified complaint, and other relevant papers at JDM’s address to an employee authorized by appointment to receive service. The plaintiff filed an affirmation of service on March 18, 2025.

JDM also argued that Federal National Mortgage Association failed to follow a directive requiring service of an order to show cause and supporting papers by March 5, 2025. JDM claimed that the plaintiff sent those papers by overnight delivery to an outdated address, and the plaintiff served the papers on March 6. The court rejected the argument, explaining that the directive concerned notice required before issuing a restraining order, not formal service of the summons and complaint. The court also stated that the plaintiff had at least substantially complied with the directive and that JDM received actual notice by responding to the order to show cause on March 12 and appearing at argument on March 21.

Disposition

The court denied JDM’s motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close Docket Number 45. The opinion does not rule on the withdrawn failure-to-state-a-claim request.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.