Saunders v. Smacked LLC

Background

Michael Saunders filed the action on July 19, 2024, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. An affidavit stated that the summons and complaint were served at 144 Bleecker Street, New York, on a person identified as Mr. Bailey. The affidavit said that Bailey was an agent of Smacked LLC and was authorized to accept service, but it did not provide his first name or explain how the process server determined that he was authorized.

Smacked LLC did not appear or answer. The court issued two orders requiring Saunders to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Saunders then moved for default judgment and submitted supporting exhibits and a proposed judgment. He later requested permission to amend the proposed judgment to include statutory damages. The court scheduled a default hearing and required Saunders to serve Smacked with the motion papers and scheduling order.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that service on a defendant must be valid before the court can enter a default judgment. A process server may reasonably rely on an employee’s identification of a person authorized to accept service, but the affidavit here did not state that the process server asked Bailey whether he was authorized to accept service or asked about his position or employment with Smacked LLC.

The court noted that decisions have found service insufficient when the process server gives no explanation supporting the conclusion that the recipient was authorized to accept the papers. The court also noted similar concerns about the validity of service of the scheduling order, the default motion, and the supporting papers.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that when a defendant has not been served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order service within a specified time, unless an appropriate extension is required because the plaintiff shows good cause. The court stated that Saunders filed the case nearly a year earlier and that Smacked still had not been properly served.

Ruling and Effect

The court denied Saunders’s motion for default judgment. It further ordered Saunders to file valid proof of service on Smacked by June 12, 2025. The court stated that the case may be dismissed if valid proof is not timely filed. The order did not itself dismiss the case. The Clerk of Court was asked to terminate the motions at docket entries 18 and 19.