Remcoda, LLC v. Sumner
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-00770
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Remcoda, LLC v. Sumner, Judge Engelmayer found service efforts sufficiently diligent and required a status update by July 15, 2022.
Remcoda, LLC and the three defendants—David Sumner, Sumner Group Health Ltd., and Encorp Switzerland AG—because the order concerns efforts to serve them and the deadline for reporting on those efforts.
What happened
Remcoda, LLC responded to the court’s order asking it to explain its efforts to serve David Sumner, Sumner Group Health Ltd., and Encorp Switzerland AG. Remcoda argued that the defendants were foreign defendants and that courts may apply a flexible diligence standard when deciding whether service was timely.
The court found that Remcoda had attempted to serve all three defendants. It ruled that the exception to the usual 90-day service deadline applied and that Remcoda had shown enough diligence. The court ordered Remcoda to file a letter updating the court on its service efforts by July 15, 2022, if all three defendants had not been served by then.
Judge Engelmayer issued the order on May 18, 2022. The opinion does not say whether service was ultimately completed or resolve the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Remcoda, LLC v. Sumner · No. 1:22-cv-00770
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 18, 2022
Background
The court received Remcoda, LLC’s response to an order requiring it to explain the status of service on David Sumner, Sumner Group Health Ltd., and Encorp Switzerland AG. Remcoda argued that the defendants were alleged to be foreign citizens and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed, is applied more flexibly to foreign defendants when the plaintiff has acted diligently.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that this flexibility does not apply when a plaintiff has made no attempt to serve a defendant residing in a foreign country. Before filing its response, Remcoda had not shown that it had made such attempts. After reviewing the response, however, the court found that Remcoda had attempted service on all three defendants. The court therefore found that the exception to Rule 4(m) applied and that Remcoda had made a sufficient showing of due diligence.
Order
The court directed Remcoda to file a letter by July 15, 2022, providing a status update about its efforts to serve the defendants if service on all three had not been completed by that date. The order addresses service timing and diligence; it does not decide the underlying claims or state whether service was ultimately completed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.