Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 27, 2021

Trombetta v. Novocin

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:18-cv-00993
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
8
Civil ProcedureFee PetitionPro Se
In one sentence

In Trombetta v. Novocin, Judge Cave denied Trombetta’s request for service costs because her waiver requests did not follow Rule 4.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Annamarie Trombetta’s request to recover service costs from William Seippel and WorthPoint Corporation; the court denied that request.

What happened

In Trombetta v. Novocin, Annamarie Trombetta, representing herself, asked the court to recover about $350 she spent serving William Seippel and WorthPoint Corporation after they declined to waive service.

The court ruled that Trombetta’s requests did not meet the required rules. She did not provide a prepaid way to return the waiver forms, did not provide two copies of each form, and did not give Seippel and WorthPoint at least 30 days to respond.

Judge Cave denied Trombetta’s motion. The ruling concerned only her request to recover service costs.

The detailed version

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

Case
Trombetta v. Novocin · No. 1:18-cv-00993
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 27, 2021

Background

Annamarie Trombetta, a pro se plaintiff, brought federal and state claims against Norb Novocin, Marie Novocin, Estate Auctions, Inc., William Seippel, and WorthPoint Corporation. She alleged that defendants advertised and sold online a low-quality artwork that was misattributed to her, causing damages.

This opinion addressed Trombetta’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) to recover the costs of serving Seippel and WorthPoint. She sought approximately $350 for service efforts, including process-service attempts and certified-mail costs. Seippel and WorthPoint opposed the motion, arguing that Trombetta had not complied with the rule’s requirements for requesting a waiver of service.

Legal standard

Rule 4(d) requires a plaintiff who asks a defendant to waive formal service to provide specified materials and information. Among other requirements, the plaintiff must provide two copies of the waiver form, a prepaid way to return it, and at least 30 days for the defendant to respond. If a defendant located in the United States refuses without good cause to waive service after a proper request, the court must impose later service expenses and certain related expenses.

The court explained that these requirements are mandatory and are a condition that must be met before a plaintiff can recover costs for a defendant’s refusal to waive service.

Application

The court found that Trombetta had not shown that she complied with Rule 4(d). She sent the waiver forms by email but did not provide a prepaid method for returning them, such as a self-addressed stamped envelope. She also did not provide two copies of the waiver form.

In addition, Trombetta undertook to serve Seippel and WorthPoint within about three weeks of requesting waivers. The court found that this did not give them the minimum 30 days required to respond. Because Trombetta did not satisfy these requirements, the court concluded that she was not entitled to recover her service costs and expenses.

Disposition

The court denied Trombetta’s motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and mail her a copy of the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 8-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.