Stringer v. Macmillan Publishers LLC
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-06651
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Stringer v. Macmillan Publishers, Judge Garnett denied Stringer’s motions to treat service as effective and directed her to wait for Marshal service.
Vickie M. Stringer’s effort to complete service of process was rejected; the defendants remained subject to the court-authorized Marshal service process.
What happened
In Vickie M. Stringer v. Macmillan Publishers LLC, et al., Vickie M. Stringer asked the court to accept service of the lawsuit that she arranged through a private process server. She argued that the defendants received the summons and complaint and had actual notice.
The court found that her filing did not show effective service. The affidavit stated that a package containing the summons was mailed on August 27, 2025, but the summons for St. Martin’s Press was not issued until September 23, 2025. The court therefore concluded that the summons and complaint could not have been properly served on August 27.
Judge Garnett denied Stringer’s motions to deem service effective, directed her to wait for service by the U.S. Marshals Service, and said she could request more time if St. Martin’s Press had not been served by December 22, 2025. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the two motions from the docket.
The detailed version
- Stringer v. Macmillan Publishers LLC · No. 1:25-cv-06651
- Garnett
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Vickie M. Stringer, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action and was granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court later entered an order directing the Clerk to send the summons and complaint to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the defendants. The opinion states that Marshal service attempts were recorded as unexecuted.
Stringer separately filed an affidavit of service and motions asking the court to accept and ratify service that she arranged through a private process server. She argued that a certified mailing had been received by authorized staff and that the defendants therefore had actual notice. She asked the court to deem service perfected or, alternatively, to direct the U.S. Marshal to record the service as executed.
Ruling
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Stringer’s motions to deem service effective, identified as Docket Nos. 18 and 19, for substantially the same reasons given in the court’s September 26, 2025 order. The court held that neither the September 24 affidavit nor the other materials showed effective service.
The court emphasized that the affidavit stated that a package containing the summons was mailed on August 27, 2025. That could not have been proper service because the summons for St. Martin’s Press was not issued by the Clerk until September 23, 2025. The court therefore concluded that Stringer could not have properly served the summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 on August 27.
The court directed Stringer to wait for service by the U.S. Marshals Service. It stated that, if St. Martin’s Press had not been served by December 22, 2025—90 days after the summons was issued—Stringer could request additional time to serve. The court also explained that Docket No. 11 was an internal court document and directed the Clerk to terminate Docket Nos. 18 and 19.
Disposition
The motions to deem service effective were denied. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.