Gucci America, Inc v. Lord & Taylor Ecomm LLC

Background

Gucci America, Inc. filed proof of service stating that Lord & Taylor Ecomm LLC had been personally served on December 5, 2023, through Michelle Cher, whom the proof identified as designated by law to accept service for Lord & Taylor. Gucci had not filed proof of service for the remaining John Doe defendants.

The court had previously ordered Gucci to address the legal basis for seizing allegedly fraudulent goods at Lord & Taylor’s warehouse. In a July 11, 2025 letter, Gucci stated that Lord & Taylor had sold and vacated the warehouse at 1735 Jersey Avenue, North Brunswick, New Jersey, so service and seizure at that location were no longer viable.

Gucci renewed its request for an order finding Lord & Taylor in contempt for failing to destroy or deliver the products at issue. The request did not identify the specific sanction Gucci wanted. Gucci also sought permission to serve future filings and orders by email at cs@lordandtaylor.com and help@lordandtaylor.com. The opinion states that an earlier email to the first address confirmed receipt, while an email to the second address was returned as undeliverable.

Service standards discussed

The court discussed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), which permits service on an individual in the United States under the law of the state where the federal district court is located. The court also discussed New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5), which permits a court to direct another method of service when traditional methods are impracticable. The court explained that an alternative method must satisfy constitutional due process by being reasonably likely to notify the interested party about the case and provide an opportunity to object. The opinion also states that email service may satisfy due process when the plaintiff shows that the email is likely to reach the defendant, including when the defendant already knows about the lawsuit.

Order

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Gucci, by August 4, 2025, to attempt to serve Lord & Taylor through its designated agent with the court’s order for default judgment at Docket 68, Judge Tarnofsky’s two Reports and Recommendations at Dockets 82 and 85, and Gucci’s most recent letter at Docket 88, unless Gucci had already done so.

By August 18, 2025, Gucci was ordered to file a letter reporting those attempts or explaining why they would be futile. Gucci was also ordered to file any motion for alternative service and explain why that method was warranted. Separately, by August 18, Gucci had to file a supplemental letter brief of no more than three single-spaced pages identifying the specific contempt sanction it sought and the legal basis for that relief. Gucci could support that submission with exhibits or affidavits complying with the judge’s individual rule. The opinion does not state that the court granted Gucci’s request for alternative service or entered a contempt finding.