Blackman v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-07119
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Blackman v. Sony/ATV, Judge Woods denied without prejudice a request to serve Harrison by email and social media.
Damon Blackman’s request for alternative service was denied without prejudice, affecting his effort to serve Rasheed “Ralo” Harrison; the order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Blackman v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC, Damon Blackman asked the court to allow alternative service of process on Rasheed “Ralo” Harrison. Blackman’s counsel said a process server, private investigator, and contact with Harrison’s lawyer had not succeeded.
Blackman asked to send the summons and complaint to Harrison by email and Instagram. Counsel asserted that Harrison knew about the case and that these methods were likely to reach him.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the application without prejudice because the letter did not provide enough factual information and relied on unsworn statements by counsel without supporting details. The court said a renewed motion must comply with the court’s local rules and include supporting affidavits and exhibits.
The detailed version
- Blackman v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07119
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 26, 2019
Background
Damon Blackman, through counsel, asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to permit alternative service of process on defendant Rasheed “Ralo” Harrison. Service of process is the formal delivery of a summons and complaint to notify a defendant about a lawsuit. The request concerned Harrison, not the merits of the underlying claims against Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC or Harrison.
Counsel stated that a process server had unsuccessfully gone to Harrison’s last known business address. Counsel also stated that a private investigator had tried to locate Harrison at a private residence and a work address, and that counsel had asked Harrison’s lawyer in another pending case to accept or waive service. The letter said counsel had located an email address and Instagram account for Harrison and requested permission to send the summons and complaint by email and Instagram.
Legal basis for the request
The letter relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and New York law allowing a court to direct another method of service when ordinary service is impracticable. It also cited factors including the plaintiff’s need, the public interest, the reasonableness of efforts to notify the defendant, and safeguards for the defendant’s interests.
Ruling
The court denied the application without prejudice. The court found that the letter did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the requested relief and that the request rested on conclusory, unsworn statements by counsel without enough supporting factual detail. The court directed counsel, if seeking to renew the request, to follow the court’s Local Rules, particularly Local Rule 7.1, which requires supporting affidavits and exhibits containing factual information necessary to decide the motion.
The order resolved only the request for an alternative method of serving Harrison. It did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.