Labombard v. Harrell
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-02196
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Labombard v. Harrell, Judge Liman denied Labombard’s request for more address information and extra time to serve two defendants.
The ruling directly affected Schoen Labombard, the City of New York, and individual defendants Sherma Dunbar and Brian Harrell by denying Labombard’s request for additional address assistance and time to serve Dunbar and Harrell. The opinion left open whether the claims against the individual defendants would later be dismissed without prejudice for untimely service.
What happened
In Labombard v. Harrell, Labombard asked the City of New York to obtain current addresses for Sherma Dunbar and Brian Harrell from the New York Employees’ Retirement System and to allow service within two weeks after disclosure. The City had previously provided the last known addresses available in its Department of Correction files and additional address information.
The court ruled that the City had complied with its earlier order because it did not possess or control the retirement system’s address information. The court also said Labombard’s counsel could have sought the information by subpoena and that the court had no special duty to help a represented plaintiff serve defendants. The court further rejected the argument that serving the New York City Law Department would count as serving Dunbar because there was no evidence that Dunbar authorized the Law Department to accept service for her.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the request. He stated that the court would address whether the claims against Dunbar and Harrell should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve them on time at a June 8, 2023 conference; the opinion did not make that dismissal decision.
The detailed version
- Labombard v. Harrell · No. 1:22-cv-02196
- Lewis Liman
- June 6, 2023
Background
Labombard asked the court to require the City of New York to obtain address information for individual defendants Sherma Dunbar and Brian Harrell from the New York Employees’ Retirement System. He also asked for permission to serve them within two weeks after the information was disclosed.
The court had previously issued an order directing the City to provide addresses where the individual defendants could be served. The City reported that Dunbar and Harrell had left the New York City Department of Correction and supplied their last known addresses from Department of Correction files. The City later provided additional address information. Labombard was unable to serve the defendants at those addresses.
Reasons for the ruling
The court held that the City had fully complied with the earlier address-identification order. The court accepted the City’s representation that the retirement system was a separate corporation and that its privacy policy required a subpoena before releasing information to someone outside the retirement system. Because the City did not possess or control the retirement system’s information, the earlier order did not require the City to obtain it.
The court also declined to require the City to seek the information at that stage. Labombard had been represented by appointed pro bono counsel since February 6, 2023, and counsel could have sought the information through a subpoena. The court noted that counsel waited until after the court-ordered April 24, 2023 service deadline to ask for help. The court also explained that the plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m), and that courts have a responsibility to assist people representing themselves but no special responsibility to assist represented plaintiffs with service.
The court separately rejected Labombard’s argument that the New York City Law Department could accept service for Dunbar because it represented her in other lawsuits. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, service on an agent is valid only when the agent is authorized by appointment or law to accept service. The court found no evidence that Dunbar authorized the Law Department to accept service for her, and said that representing a person in other matters does not by itself create that authority.
Disposition
The court denied Labombard’s request for the City to obtain retirement-system address information and for additional time to serve the individual defendants. Judge Lewis J. Liman stated that the court would address at the June 8, 2023 conference whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice against Dunbar and Harrell for failure to make timely service. The opinion did not itself dismiss those claims. The court also noted that filing an amended complaint does not restart the Rule 4(m) service period.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.