Agra v. Dolci

Background

Pedro Agra, representing himself, brought claims including sex trafficking, racketeering, and discrimination under state and federal law against Guido Dolci, Nadia Shahrik, Massimo Tacchini, Major Miami LLC (Miami), Gemide Srl (Gemide), Major Model Management Inc. (MMM), and Mensboard Management, Inc. Dolci, Shahrik, Gemide, MMM, Miami, and Mensboard moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, defective service of process, and failure to state a claim. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a report and recommendation (R&R) recommending several dismissals, a service extension, and permission to amend allegations against Miami. Agra and some defendants objected.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the R&R either independently or for clear error, depending on the type of objection. It rejected Agra’s objections concerning MMM, concluding that his claims were barred by res judicata, meaning that the claims had already been decided in a final bankruptcy proceeding and could not be litigated again. The court also rejected his argument that alleged shortcomings by his former appellate lawyer justified voiding the bankruptcy discharge, explaining that there is no right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case.

The court upheld the R&R’s service-of-process conclusions. It determined that Dolci, Shahrik, Gemide, and Mensboard had raised service objections in their first filings and therefore had not waived those objections. Because the original complaint had not been properly served on them, service of the amended complaint was governed by the stricter requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, rather than Rule 5. The court rejected the argument that actual notice cured defective service. It also upheld a discretionary 90-day extension to complete service, including service on Gemide in Italy.

The court upheld dismissal of the claims against Miami for lack of personal jurisdiction. Agra argued that Miami was the alter ego of MMM, but the court found that this argument rested only on conclusory allegations and did not establish an alter-ego relationship. The court nevertheless allowed Agra to amend his personal-jurisdiction allegations because the R&R had not reached the merits of the amended complaint and a liberal reading of his allegations suggested that a valid claim might be stated.

Disposition

The court overruled all objections and adopted the R&R in full. It granted Dolci, Shahrik, Gemide, and Mensboard’s motions to dismiss without prejudice. It granted Agra an extension of 90 days after the deadline to amend his complaint to serve those four defendants. It granted Miami’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted Agra leave to amend his personal-jurisdiction allegations concerning Miami by October 30, 2025. It granted MMM’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The opinion states that Tacchini had not appeared and does not list a disposition concerning him. Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions identified in the order.