Williams v. T.D. Bank

Background

David K. Williams brought this action on behalf of Gus Williams’s estate and as guardian of Rosanna Williams. He sued T.D. Bank, N.A., Kevin Taylor, and Derek K., seeking $1,000,000,000 in monetary damages, treble damages, an injunction, litigation expenses, and other relief.

The complaint concerns a safe-deposit box at the Bank. Williams alleges that the Bank wrongly denied him authorization to access materials stored there, misappropriated the box’s contents, and attempted to conceal its conduct as part of a broader conspiracy.

Service of the lawsuit

Before the court was the Bank’s letter motion asking permission to file a waiver of service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) and to treat the Bank as served on September 11, 2025. Williams opposed the request, characterizing it as an effort to delay the case.

The court explained that a plaintiff is responsible for serving each defendant with the summons and complaint. A corporation generally must be served through an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized to accept service, using a method allowed by federal or state law.

Williams filed proof of service stating that he had served the summons, complaint, and filed exhibits on the Bank through its lawyers at Duane Morris LLP. The Bank argued that this service was invalid because the papers were sent to its attorneys by mail and, according to the Bank, did not include copies of the summons and complaint. The Bank also represented that its lawyers were not authorized to accept service. The court found no evidence to the contrary and stated that service on an attorney who is not authorized to accept service for a client is ineffective. It therefore concluded that proper service had not been made and that the court lacked authority over the Bank based on service at that time.

The court directed the Clerk’s Office to send Williams the Southern District of New York’s guide for people without lawyers explaining service procedures. The court also noted that the deadline for a defendant’s response to a complaint begins when service is successful.

Waiver of service

The court interpreted Rule 4(d) as indicating that the plaintiff must initiate a request for a defendant to waive service. The record showed that the Bank offered to waive service, but Williams rejected the offer and did not request a waiver. Because Williams opposed the proposed waiver, the court held that it could not grant the Bank’s request to file one over his objection.

Disposition

The court denied the Bank’s Motion to Permit a Rule 4(d) Waiver and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket Number 19. The order did not resolve the merits of Williams’s allegations against the defendants.