Giddings v. Oanda Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-05251
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Giddings v. Oanda Corp., Judge Broderick denied requests for alternative service, address information, and amendment.
Warren Matthew Giddings’s requests were denied, while the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt service on Oanda Corp. and extended the deadline for serving Oanda.
What happened
Giddings v. Oanda Corp. concerns Warren Matthew Giddings’s requests in a Federal Tort Claims Act case involving Oanda Corp., the United States, and Max F. Brauer. Giddings asked for alternative service on Oanda, an order requiring the United States to provide Oanda’s address, and permission to add claims based on federal commodity-trading regulations.
The court found that Giddings had not shown that ordinary service methods were impracticable or explained what alternative service he wanted. It also found that his request for address information from the United States was premature and that he had not shown good cause for early discovery. The court further concluded that the proposed regulatory claims were futile because Giddings had not plausibly alleged a claim and the related Commodity Exchange Act claim would be time-barred.
Judge Broderick denied the motion in its entirety. He directed the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt service on Oanda at 17 State Street, Suite 300, New York, New York 10004, ordered Giddings to provide additional address information by June 1, 2022, and extended the service deadline to July 18, 2022.
The detailed version
- Giddings v. Oanda Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-05251
- Vernon Broderick
- May 6, 2022
Background
Warren Matthew Giddings, proceeding without a lawyer and with permission to proceed without paying filing fees, brought a Federal Tort Claims Act case against Oanda Corp., the United States, and Max F. Brauer. The court had previously directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Oanda and the United States. The Marshals Service could not locate Oanda at the previously listed address, and the court directed Giddings to provide another address.
Giddings then moved for three forms of relief: (1) alternative service on Oanda; (2) an order requiring the United States to provide Oanda’s address through early discovery; and (3) permission to amend his complaint to add claims based on 17 C.F.R. §§ 166.1–.5. The court denied the motion in its entirety.
Alternative Service
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 permits service on a corporation through specified agents or under the law of the state where the federal court is located. New York law also allows a court to direct another method when the ordinary methods are impracticable and the proposed method would reasonably notify the defendant.
The court held that Giddings had not shown that all prescribed service methods were impracticable. He also did not identify what alternative form of service he wanted, other than asking for public service. The court stated that it had no reason to believe Oanda had unlawfully made a false address available to the public. It therefore denied the request for alternative service.
The court found Oanda’s address listed online as 17 State Street, Suite 300, New York, New York 10004. It directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the required U.S. Marshals Service paperwork so the Marshals could attempt service at that address. Giddings was ordered to provide any additional address information by June 1, 2022.
The court explained that, although a plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees may rely on the Marshals Service to carry out service, the plaintiff remains responsible for ensuring that service is completed. The court also extended the time to serve Oanda by 45 days, to July 18, 2022, and stated that Giddings should request another extension if service could not be completed by then.
Request for Address Information and Early Discovery
Giddings asked the court to require the United States to provide Oanda’s location through initial disclosures. The court explained that discovery generally cannot begin before the parties’ required conference unless the court authorizes it. Early discovery may be allowed for good cause.
The court denied this request because it was premature, Giddings had not shown good cause for an early-discovery order, and the court was already assisting him by identifying an address for Oanda. The court therefore considered his request for help from the United States moot and denied the motion for an order requiring the United States to provide Oanda’s address.
Request to Amend the Complaint
Giddings sought permission to add claims based on 17 C.F.R. §§ 166.1–.5. The court treated references to a nonexistent section, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1666.1–.5, as references to §§ 166.1–.5, which concern regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act.
The court had previously denied Giddings’s request to add a Commodity Exchange Act claim because he had not alleged supporting facts and the claim would be barred by the applicable two-year limitations period. The court concluded that claims based on the related regulations were futile for the same reasons. It also separately found that Giddings had not plausibly alleged a cause of action under those regulations. In particular, the court stated that the regulation concerning the name under which a registrant holds itself out to the public did not concern addresses, and that the regulation concerning arbitration agreements did not address the issue Giddings raised about forums for resolving commodity disputes.
The court therefore denied leave to add the proposed regulatory claims.
Disposition
Judge Broderick denied Giddings’s motion at Doc. 86. The court directed service on Oanda at 17 State Street, Suite 300, New York, New York 10004, ordered Giddings to provide additional address information by June 1, 2022, and extended the deadline for service on Oanda to July 18, 2022.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.