Wang v. Verizon Communications Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:19-cv-09506
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wang v. Verizon Communications Inc., Judge Lehrburger denied without prejudice Wang’s request to recover service costs because Rule 4(d)(2) compliance was not shown.
Hao Zhe Wang’s request for reimbursement was denied without prejudice, while the defendants were not ordered to reimburse the service costs.
What happened
In Wang v. Verizon Communications Inc., Hao Zhe Wang asked the court to order the defendants to reimburse $366.84 he spent serving defendants who rejected his requests to waive service.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because Wang had not shown that he strictly complied with the requirements for requesting a waiver of service under Rule 4(d)(2). The court allowed him to renew the request by September 11, 2020, if he filed proof that his notice and waiver request met all Rule 4(d)(2) requirements.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 77.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Verizon Communications Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09506
- Robert Lehrburger
- Aug. 12, 2020
Background
Hao Zhe Wang moved for an order requiring the defendants to reimburse $366.84 spent serving defendants who rejected his requests to waive service. The opinion does not provide further details about the underlying claims.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2) addresses the consequences of a defendant’s failure to waive service when the plaintiff properly requests a waiver. The court denied Wang’s motion without prejudice because he failed to demonstrate strict compliance with Rule 4(d)(2). “Without prejudice” means the ruling did not bar him from making the request again.
Ruling
The court stated that Wang could renew his request by September 11, 2020, by filing proof that he submitted notice and waiver materials complying with all Rule 4(d)(2) requirements. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 77. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.