Swayze v. Lafontant

Background

Scott Swayze sued Theresa LaFontant, Natasha LaFontant, unidentified defendants, and unidentified companies for monetary damages after a pitbull attacked him on June 15, 2018, while he was on Theresa’s property in Spring Valley, New York. Natasha’s declaration referred to the pitbull as her dog. Swayze’s attorneys sent correspondence to Natasha at the Spring Valley property, and Swayze believed that property was also Natasha’s residence.

Swayze filed the original complaint in the District of New Jersey on June 12, 2020. During an April 13, 2021 conference, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer gave Swayze until May 4, 2021, to serve Natasha or seek additional time. On April 28, Swayze left the summons and complaint with Theresa at the Spring Valley property. The case was later transferred to the Southern District of New York.

Swayze eventually made a public-records request that identified Greg LaFontant as the record owner of the dog. Natasha then moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her and that service of process was insufficient. Swayze cross-moved for more time to serve Natasha and for permission to amend the complaint to add Greg.

Service on Natasha

Rule 4(e) allows service on an individual by leaving the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling or usual residence with someone of suitable age and discretion who lives there. The court found that Swayze’s April 28 service was insufficient because Natasha no longer lived at the Spring Valley property when service occurred. Documents including Natasha’s driver’s license, bank records, and insurance-company communications indicated that she lived in Pomona instead.

The court nevertheless denied Natasha’s motion to dismiss and granted Swayze a further extension of time. It reasoned that proper service could still be completed and that the circumstances supported an extension. The court considered the three-year limitations period for the personal-injury claim, evidence suggesting Natasha had actual notice, the absence of evidence that she had concealed the service problem, and the lack of unfair prejudice because she had already participated in the case and retained counsel. The court did not decide whether Natasha or another person signed the receipt for a certified letter sent to her former address, because it found that the overall circumstances suggested she had actual notice. Swayze received one month from the decision to properly serve Natasha.

Adding Greg as a Defendant

The court denied Swayze’s motion to amend the complaint to add Greg. Because the limitations period had expired, the court applied Rule 15(c)(1)(C), which governs when an amendment adding a new party can relate back to the original complaint and avoid the limitations bar.

The court explained that, under Second Circuit precedent, replacing an unidentified John Doe defendant with a newly identified defendant is generally not a qualifying mistake about the defendant’s identity when the plaintiff simply did not know the person’s name. Swayze did not identify Greg before the limitations period expired and waited until November 2021—more than a year after filing the complaint and after the limitations period had run—to make the public-records request. The court also found that Swayze had not adequately explained the delay. It therefore concluded that adding Greg was barred and denied the amendment request.

Disposition

The court denied Natasha LaFontant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service, granted Scott Swayze’s motion for an extension of time to serve Natasha, and denied Scott Swayze’s motion to amend the complaint to add Greg LaFontant. The opinion addressed service and amendment issues and did not decide whether the defendants were liable for Swayze’s injuries.