Silverstein v. Therapeutics

Background

Michael Silverstein filed a complaint against Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Wei Cao, and Ying Huang in New York City Civil Court on July 10, 2024. The complaint listed claims described as “Other,” harassment, slander, perjury, and false accusations, with requested dollar amounts. It did not include factual allegations explaining what any defendant allegedly did or how Silverstein was injured.

Spark Therapeutics removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 8, 2024, relying on diversity jurisdiction. Spark then moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), which addresses insufficient service of process, and 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Silverstein did not respond to the motion or file an amended complaint. Cao and Huang did not appear.

Service of process

The court held that New York law governed whether service before removal was proper. Under the New York City Civil Court Act, service had to be completed through personal delivery or by filing proof of service. Spark argued, and the court found, that Silverstein had not used either method and instead apparently mailed the complaint to a non-party entity.

The court also held that the federal 90-day period for service after removal had expired. Spark served Silverstein with the notice of removal in November 2024, so the service period expired in February 2025. As of at least July 14, 2025, Silverstein had not served the defendants and had not requested additional time. The court therefore granted Spark Therapeutics’ motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.

Failure to state a claim

Because the court dismissed based on insufficient service, it said it did not need to decide Spark’s separate argument that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court nevertheless stated that, even assuming it had jurisdiction, the complaint plainly failed to state a plausible claim because it contained only lists of causes of action and dollar amounts, without supporting facts.

The court applied this reasoning to Silverstein’s claims against Cao and Huang and used its authority to dismiss those claims without a separate motion from those defendants. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim against any defendant.

Disposition

The court granted Spark Therapeutics’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Silverstein’s claims against Spark Therapeutics, Cao, and Huang with prejudice, directed the clerk to close the relevant motion entry, and marked the action closed.