Trombetta v. Novocin
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-00993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Trombetta v. Novocin, Judge Abrams permitted alternative service by mail but kept the January 21, 2021 deadline.
Annamarie Trombetta, William Sieppel, and Worthpoint Corporation. The order gives Trombetta an alternative method for serving Sieppel and Worthpoint but keeps the January 21, 2021 service deadline.
What happened
In Trombetta v. Novocin, Annamarie Trombetta told the court that William Sieppel and Worthpoint Corporation had not responded to her requests to waive formal service of the lawsuit. She also asked to serve them by certified mail.
The court said the waiver requests did not appear to follow the federal rules and that the defendants were not required to waive service. Because Trombetta had tried several times to serve them in person, including during the COVID-19 closure of Worthpoint’s office, and because they already knew about the lawsuit, the court found that mail service was proper under New York law.
Judge Ronnie Abrams allowed Trombetta to attach the sealed summons and amended complaint to the door of the defendants’ actual business or residence and mail the documents as well. The January 21, 2021 deadline remained unchanged, and the court said the action would be dismissed as to Sieppel and Worthpoint if service was not completed by then.
The detailed version
- Trombetta v. Novocin · No. 1:18-cv-00993
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 18, 2020
Background
Annamarie Trombetta reported that she had asked William Sieppel and Worthpoint Corporation three times to waive formal service of process, but neither defendant responded. The court stated that the requests did not appear to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d), and that defendants have no obligation to waive service.
Trombetta also asked for permission to serve the defendants by certified mail. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), an individual in the United States may be served under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. Rule 4(h) provides the same service methods for a corporation. The court stated that Georgia law, where service was to be made, does not permit service by mail. It also explained that New York law permits mail service when personal service cannot be completed with due diligence, provided that the summons is affixed to the door of the person’s actual business, dwelling, or usual residence in New York and mailed to the person’s last known residence.
Trombetta said she had made several attempts to serve the defendants personally. No one was at the office during one attempt, and a Worthpoint employee refused the legal documents during another. An email from the process server indicated that the office remained closed because of the COVID-19 crisis. The defendants had also appeared in the litigation and filed a motion to dismiss, so the court found that they knew about the lawsuit and had an opportunity to be heard.
Court’s ruling
The court concluded that Trombetta had shown due diligence and that personal service had been too difficult to complete. It therefore permitted her to serve the defendants by affixing the sealed summons and amended complaint to the door of their actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode and mailing the documents as well.
Judge Ronnie Abrams left unchanged the January 21, 2021 deadline for completing service. The court reiterated that the action would be dismissed as to Sieppel and Worthpoint if Trombetta did not properly complete service by that date and stated that no further extensions would be given. The clerk was directed to mail Trombetta a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.