Rojas v. Nuvem Health LLC

Background

Albert Rojas filed a complaint against Nuvem Health LLC. He alleged that Nuvem Health terminated him in October 2023 and that he later entered into a confidential settlement agreement with the company in January 2025. The complaint asserted retaliation claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Section 740 of the New York Labor Law, and the First Amendment. It also asserted a New York contract claim.

Rojas attempted to serve Nuvem Health by certified mail. He sent the summons and complaint to “Nuvem Health LLC c/o Michael Goettig, Partner,” at the offices of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Rojas contended that Michael Goettig was Nuvem Health’s counsel of record, but he did not provide evidence that Goettig was authorized to accept service for the company.

Service of Process

The court granted Nuvem Health’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), which permits dismissal for insufficient service of process, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court explained that certified mail was not a valid method for serving a corporation or limited liability company under the applicable New York rules. The alternative New York mail procedure required first-class mail, specific documents, and an acknowledgment procedure, and Rojas did not claim to have followed those requirements.

The court also found that the attempted service failed under the Federal Rules because Rule 4(h) requires delivery to an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized to receive service. Rojas did not show that Goettig was authorized to accept service merely because he had represented Nuvem Health during settlement negotiations. Service on an attorney who is not authorized to accept service for the client is ineffective.

Failure to State a Claim

The court separately granted Nuvem Health’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. Although the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of this motion and applied the more generous reading required for a self-represented litigant, it found that the complaint was a bare-bones recitation of the elements of the asserted claims. It did not explain how sufficient facts supported an inference that Rojas was entitled to relief.

The court also declined to consider new factual allegations and legal theories that Rojas raised for the first time in his opposition papers. The court stated that a party cannot amend a complaint through briefing on a motion to dismiss. Because the complaint failed to state a claim, the court dismissed it without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).

Other Rulings and Disposition

The defendant also moved under Rule 12(b)(4), which concerns insufficient process, and under Rule 12(b)(2), based on personal jurisdiction. The court stated that it was unnecessary to address the Rule 12(b)(4) arguments because the claims were dismissed for insufficient service under Rule 12(b)(5). The opinion does not separately state a disposition of the Rule 12(b)(2) motion beyond the overall grant of the motion to dismiss.

The court additionally ordered that all filings Rojas submitted after Magistrate Judge Willis instructed him not to file additional papers were stricken as unauthorized. In the conclusion, Judge John G. Koeltl granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the action without prejudice, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, closed the case, and closed all pending motions.