Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 18, 2020

Corson v. Power Moves, Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:19-cv-08847
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Corson v. Power Moves, Judge Broderick denied Corson’s motion to serve Shawn Perez through alternative methods.

Who this affects

The ruling directly affected Lisa Corson’s attempt to serve Shawn Perez. It denied permission to use the proposed alternative service methods without prejudice; the opinion does not state the effect on the claims against Power Moves, Inc.

What happened

In Corson v. Power Moves, Inc., Lisa Corson sued Power Moves, Inc., in a copyright case and later added Shawn Perez as a defendant. Neither defendant had been served when Corson asked to use alternative service methods.

Corson proposed registered mail to Perez’s business and home addresses, plus Facebook and email. The court found she had not shown that ordinary service was impracticable or that the proposed methods would likely notify Perez, especially because the home address came from an unspecified online database and she provided little evidence about the Facebook page or email address.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion without prejudice. This allowed Corson to seek alternative service again, but the court did not grant permission to use the proposed methods.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Corson v. Power Moves, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08847
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 18, 2020

Background

Lisa Corson filed a copyright-infringement action against Power Moves, Inc. Power Moves was served but did not answer, and Corson obtained a clerk’s certificate of default. Corson later filed an amended complaint naming Power Moves and Shawn Perez as defendants. The Clerk issued a summons for Perez and another for Power Moves, but neither defendant had been served.

Corson moved for permission to serve Perez by alternative means. She proposed sending registered mail to Perez’s purported business and home addresses and sending notice through the company’s Facebook page and an email address. Corson’s counsel stated that the purported home address came from an unspecified online database and that a waiver of service had been sent without receiving a response.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5) allow a court to authorize an alternative method of serving an individual when the usual methods are impracticable. A plaintiff generally must show that the prescribed methods cannot be used. The proposed alternative must also satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to notify the defendant about the action and give the defendant an opportunity to respond.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Corson had not shown that ordinary service was impracticable. Corson argued that personal service was unlawful during the COVID-19 pandemic, but she provided no supporting authority, comparable decisions, or other reason establishing that ordinary service could not be made. The court also noted that the claimed barrier appeared temporary and stated that Corson could seek more time to serve Perez for good cause under Rule 4(m).

The court separately found that Corson had not shown that her proposed methods would satisfy due process. Corson offered no proof that the purported home address was actually Perez’s residence. She did not provide the location of the proposed Facebook page or the specific email address, or evidence that Perez used or regularly checked either one. She also provided no details about Perez’s relationship with Power Moves or his role in the company that would suggest he was likely to access the company’s Facebook page.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that Corson’s motion for leave to serve Perez by alternative means was denied without prejudice. The opinion did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.