Martinez v. Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC
Yudelka Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC, et al.
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-08692
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez v. Dubai Lounge, Judge Cronan ordered service again because the filing did not show which summons and complaint were delivered.
Plaintiff Yudelka Martinez and Defendant Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC, concerning the required service of the lawsuit documents.
What happened
In Yudelka Martinez v. Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC, Yudelka Martinez filed the case on October 21, 2025. A process server later filed an affidavit stating that Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC had been served through an authorized agent of New York’s Secretary of State, but the affidavit did not include the summons or complaint it said had been delivered.
Because the filing did not identify which summons and complaint were delivered, the court said it could not determine whether service was proper. The court ordered Martinez to personally deliver copies of the summons, complaint, and order to a person authorized to accept service for Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC.
The court also required Martinez’s proof of service to describe the person who accepted the documents and why the process server reasonably believed that person was qualified. The proof had to be filed by December 23, 2025. Judge John P. Cronan did not rule on the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC · No. 1:25-cv-08692
- John Cronan
- Dec. 5, 2025
Background
Yudelka Martinez filed the complaint on October 21, 2025. On October 24, 2025, she filed an affidavit from a process server stating that Defendant Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC had been served by delivering an “annexed Summons” and Complaint to an authorized agent of the New York Secretary of State. The affidavit, however, did not have a summons or complaint attached to it.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that an affidavit of service—the document describing how legal papers were delivered—normally provides initial evidence that service occurred. Here, the affidavit did not specify which summons and complaint had been delivered to the company’s registered agent. The court therefore said it remained unclear whether service was proper. It cited the principle that doubts about service should, when possible, be resolved in favor of allowing disputes to be decided on their merits.
Order
The court ordered Martinez to serve Dubai Lounge & Restaurant LLC with copies of the summons, complaint, and the order by personally delivering them to a person authorized to accept service for the company. Martinez’s affidavit of service must describe the individual who accepts delivery and facts showing why it was reasonable for the process server to believe that the individual was qualified to accept service. The court required proof of service complying with the order to be filed by December 23, 2025.
This order addressed the adequacy of service and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.