Di Michele v. Amaya Partners LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-08439
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Di Michele v. Amaya Partners: Judge Cronan granted more time to serve defendants but denied without prejudice email service on Kunal Pasawala.
Plaintiff Alessia Di Michele received more time, through June 13, 2023, to serve Amaya Partners LLC and Kunal Pasawala. The request for alternative service of Pasawala by email was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Di Michele v. Amaya Partners LLC, plaintiff Alessia Di Michele asked for more time to serve Amaya Partners LLC and Kunal Pasawala. She also asked to serve Pasawala by email and iMessage after process servers could not find him at two prior addresses.
The court noted that Di Michele had identified Pasawala’s actual business address at 99 Park Avenue in New York. Under New York law, alternative service is allowed only when the usual methods, including service at a person’s workplace, are impracticable.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request to extend the deadline for serving the defendants through June 13, 2023. He denied without prejudice the request to serve Pasawala by email because Di Michele had not shown that service at his identified workplace would be impracticable.
The detailed version
- Di Michele v. Amaya Partners LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08439
- John Cronan
- May 4, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Alessia Di Michele asked the court to extend the deadline for serving defendants Amaya Partners LLC and Kunal Pasawala through June 13, 2023. She also renewed a request to serve Pasawala by alternative methods, specifically email and iMessage.
Di Michele’s counsel stated that process servers had unsuccessfully tried to serve Pasawala at a business address in Edgewater, New Jersey, on January 14, 2023, and at a last-known residential address in West New York, New Jersey, on March 22, 2023. Counsel later located a webpage listing Pasawala’s professional contact information, including an email address and phone numbers. Counsel also stated that Pasawala had contacted the firm by telephone and could receive PDF files through iMessage.
Legal standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed, the court must dismiss the action against the unserved defendant without prejudice or order service by a specified deadline. When a plaintiff shows good cause, the court must extend the deadline; even without good cause, the court may grant an extension.
New York law permits alternative service on an individual when the ordinary methods are impracticable. One ordinary method allows the summons to be left with a suitable person at the defendant’s actual workplace and mailed to that address. A plaintiff seeking alternative service must make some showing that the prescribed methods cannot be used.
Ruling
The court granted the request for an enlargement of time to serve the defendants through June 13, 2023.
The court denied without prejudice the request to serve Pasawala by email. It reasoned that Di Michele had identified Pasawala’s actual place of business at 99 Park Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10016, but had not shown that service at that address using the ordinary workplace method would be impracticable. Until that showing is made, New York law does not authorize alternative service under the provision cited by the court.
The order expressly ruled on email service. It does not separately state a disposition for the requested iMessage service.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.