Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 15, 2023

Di Michele v. Amaya Partners LLC

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:22-cv-08439
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Di Michele v. Amaya Partners LLC, Judge Cronan extended the service deadline but denied without prejudice email service because standard service was not shown impracticable.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Alessia Di Michele received more time to serve Defendants Amaya Partners LLC and Kunal Pasawala, but could not yet serve them by email under the court’s ruling.

What happened

In Di Michele v. Amaya Partners LLC, Alessia Di Michele asked for more time to serve Amaya Partners LLC and Kunal Pasawala after process servers could not serve them at a business address in New Jersey.

Di Michele also asked to serve the defendants by email. Counsel stated that Pasawala had contacted the law firm and appeared to know about the lawsuit, but the court found that the defendants’ departure from the business address did not establish that standard service was impracticable.

Judge John P. Cronan granted the request to extend the service deadline through March 13, 2023, but denied without prejudice the request to use alternative service. The court said Di Michele could ask Pasawala to consent to service by email.

The detailed version

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

Case
Di Michele v. Amaya Partners LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08439
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Feb. 15, 2023

Background

Plaintiff Alessia Di Michele requested an enlargement of time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) to serve Defendants Amaya Partners LLC and Kunal Pasawala through March 13, 2023. The request stated that process servers had unsuccessfully attempted service at 725 River Road, Edgewater, New Jersey, and were told that the defendants were no longer doing business there. Counsel also stated that Pasawala had contacted the firm by telephone and had actual and constructive knowledge of the litigation.

Requested Alternative Service

Di Michele also requested permission to serve the defendants by email. The request relied on New York law allowing a court to direct an alternative method of service when service under the standard methods is impracticable. The court explained that the plaintiff had to make some showing that the prescribed methods could not be used.

Ruling

The court granted the request for an enlargement of time to serve the defendants through March 13, 2023. It denied without prejudice the request to serve through alternative means, stating that the defendants’ no longer doing business at the listed address was insufficient to show that standard service was impracticable. Because counsel remained in contact with Pasawala, the court stated that Di Michele could request Pasawala’s consent to service by email. The court also noted that New Jersey law may, in some circumstances, permit substitute service on an agent or entity.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.