Eslava v. Heavenly Delicatessen Market Group
Juan Maldonado Eslava, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Heavenly Delicatessen Market Group, Inc. (d/b/a Heavenly Market and Deljd) and Jamal Musleh
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-01463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maldonado Eslava v. Heavenly Delicatessen, Judge Ricardo extended the service deadline but denied without prejudice newspaper service on Jamal Musleh.
The ruling affects Juan Maldonado Eslava and the other plaintiffs, Heavenly Delicatessen Market Group, Inc., and Jamal Musleh. It extends the plaintiffs’ service deadline and denies without prejudice the requested newspaper service on Musleh.
What happened
Juan Maldonado Eslava sued Heavenly Delicatessen Market Group, Inc. and Jamal Musleh individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion addressed two requests concerning service of the lawsuit.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to extend the deadline for completing service from September 18, 2025, to December 17, 2025. It denied without prejudice the request to serve Musleh by publishing notice in a newspaper.
Judge Henry J. Ricardo said the plaintiffs had not shown that ordinary service methods were impracticable. The ruling does not prevent the plaintiffs from renewing the newspaper-publication request, but the opinion does not specify what further steps may be taken.
The detailed version
- Eslava v. Heavenly Delicatessen Market Group · No. 1:25-cv-01463
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
The case was referred to Judge Ricardo on October 9, 2025, for general pretrial matters and to address the motions at ECF Nos. 19 and 20. The plaintiffs asked for an extension of the deadline to complete service and separately asked to serve Jamal Musleh through newspaper publication.
Rulings
The court granted the plaintiffs’ letter motion at ECF No. 20. It extended the deadline to complete service from September 18, 2025, to December 17, 2025.
The court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request at ECF No. 19 to serve Musleh by newspaper publication. The court explained that New York law allows alternative service when the usual methods are impracticable, but the plaintiffs generally must show that the prescribed methods could not be used. The plaintiffs described only two service attempts: one at Musleh’s home on February 22, 2025, and one at his workplace on September 15, 2025. The request did not provide details about efforts to locate Musleh or legal authority supporting publication under these circumstances. Because the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that ordinary service was impracticable, the court denied the publication request without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.