Trombetta v. Novocin

Background

Annamarie Trombetta sued Norb Novocin, Marie Novocin, and Estate Auctions, Inc. over the alleged advertisement and sale of a low-quality painting that defendants falsely claimed Trombetta had painted. She later added William Seippel and WorthPoint Corporation, alleging that they contributed to the alleged harm by reposting information about the sale and again attributing the painting to her.

This opinion addresses the Worthpoint Defendants’ motions concerning service of process. A magistrate judge had directed Trombetta to serve the operative complaint on Seippel and WorthPoint by May 21, 2020, and told her to file a motion if she needed more time. Trombetta submitted an affidavit saying that she had served both defendants, but later acknowledged that she had not served properly signed and sealed summonses. She attributed the problems in part to the pandemic, her health, and her unfamiliarity with the law.

After the Worthpoint Defendants moved to dismiss, Trombetta made another service attempt without court permission. The summons for Seippel misspelled his name, and the summons for WorthPoint used a form designated for Freedom of Information Act cases rather than the form required for general civil cases. Trombetta later obtained a third set of summonses and moved for more time to serve the defendants. That motion was denied without prejudice while the service issues were being considered.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a summons to be signed by the clerk and bear the court’s seal. A separate summons must be issued for each defendant, and service must comply with the rules for serving individuals or domestic corporations. If service is not completed within 90 days after the complaint is filed, Rule 4 generally requires dismissal without prejudice unless the plaintiff shows good cause. The court also explained that it could extend the deadline even without good cause.

The court did not decide whether Trombetta’s explanations established good cause. Instead, it exercised its discretion to give her a 60-day extension to obtain correct summonses and properly serve both Worthpoint Defendants. The opinion states that service had to be completed by January 21, 2020, although that date appears inconsistent with the November 23, 2020 opinion and the stated 60-day extension.

The court also held that it could not decide the remaining claims raised by the Worthpoint Defendants—including their argument that Trombetta failed to state a claim—before proper service was completed. Proper service is required before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Disposition

The court DENIED the motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(4), and 12(b)(5), DENIED the motion to quash summons, and GRANTED Trombetta a 60-day extension to serve process. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 108 and reissue the summonses. The court stated that failure to properly serve each Worthpoint Defendant within the extension would result in dismissal as to those defendants, and that no further extensions would be granted.