Shim v. Luxury Asset Capital
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-09738
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Shim v. Luxury Asset Capital, Judge Cronan granted email service on Carmichael, denied alternative service on Gillern, and extended the service deadline.
The order affects plaintiff Junsub Shim and defendants Seth Carmichael and Nora Alette Gillern. It authorizes email service on Carmichael, leaves open a renewed alternative-service request for Gillern, and extends the service deadline for both defendants.
What happened
In Junsub Shim v. Luxury Asset Capital, LLC, et al., Junsub Shim asked to use alternative methods to serve the amended complaint and summons on defendants Seth Carmichael and Nora Alette Gillern.
The court found that ordinary service on Carmichael was impracticable and that email was likely to reach him because he had recently used the proposed email address. Shim did not show that ordinary service on Gillern was impracticable under all three relevant New York service methods.
Judge Cronan granted the motion solely as to Carmichael, allowing service by email, and denied it as to Gillern. The court allowed Shim to renew the request for Gillern and extended the service deadline for both defendants to December 22, 2025.
The detailed version
- Shim v. Luxury Asset Capital · No. 1:24-cv-09738
- John Cronan
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Junsub Shim moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and 4(f)(3), and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 308(5), for permission to serve copies of the Amended Complaint and summons on defendants Seth Carmichael and Nora Alette Gillern through alternative methods.
Legal standards
New York law permits a court to order an alternative method of personal service when service through the methods listed in Section 308(1), (2), and (4) is impracticable. Service must also satisfy due process, meaning that the method must be reasonably likely to inform the defendant about the case and give the defendant an opportunity to respond.
Rule 4(f)(3) permits court-ordered service on an individual in a foreign country through means not prohibited by an international agreement. The court explained that a plaintiff does not have to exhaust every other international-service method before seeking an order under that rule, although attempts to use other methods and the need for court involvement can guide the court's decision.
Carmichael
The court found that Shim showed ordinary service on Carmichael was impracticable. Shim's counsel had searched public records but could not confirm whether Carmichael lived outside the United States or, if so, in which country. Shim had also tried traditional service methods, including personal service at Carmichael's last known United States address.
The court further found that email service would satisfy due process because Carmichael had used the proposed email address to communicate with representatives of Luxury Asset Capital, LLC and Shim's purchasing agent as recently as March 2024. The court therefore granted Shim's motion to serve Carmichael with the Amended Complaint and summons by email.
Gillern
The proposed methods for Gillern included regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, at her last known home and employer addresses, as well as service through social-media accounts. The court denied the request because Shim had not shown that service was impracticable under each of the three relevant New York service provisions. The court stated that Shim could renew the alternative-service motion as to Gillern after making that showing.
Disposition
The court granted the motion for alternative service solely with respect to Carmichael and denied it with respect to Gillern. The court stated that Carmichael could later challenge the sufficiency of service when he appears. It directed Shim to email Carmichael the summons, complaint, and order and to file proof of service. The court extended the time for service under Rule 4(m) to December 22, 2025, as to both Carmichael and Gillern, and directed the Clerk to close Docket Number 41.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.