Shapiro v. Jacobson
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-03964
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Shapiro v. Jacobson, Judge Schofield vacated service on Stephen Komorek, denied sanctions, and set a new service deadline.
The ruling directly affected Stephen Komorek and the plaintiffs by vacating the prior service, setting a new service deadline, and denying Komorek’s sanctions request.
What happened
In Shapiro v. Jacobson, the plaintiffs served Stephen Komorek by leaving papers with a woman at an Ohio address identified as his wife. Komorek argued that the service was improper because he did not live at that address and because other service requirements were not met.
The court found that the evidence was not enough to show that the address was Komorek’s home or usual place of residence. The court vacated the service and ordered the plaintiffs to serve Komorek by September 12, 2023. It also denied Komorek’s request for sanctions.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield adjourned the case management conference from August 23 to September 21, 2023, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Shapiro v. Jacobson · No. 1:23-cv-03964
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
An earlier order scheduled a case management conference for August 23, 2023. The plaintiffs filed proof that Stephen Komorek had been served on July 8, 2023, when Michael Kraft left the summons at a Wellston, Ohio address with a woman who identified herself as Komorek’s wife.
Komorek moved to vacate the proof of service and requested sanctions against the plaintiffs’ counsel. He argued that service violated Ohio law because Kraft was not a registered process server, the property had a no-trespassing sign, and Komorek had never lived at the Wellston address. He later filed three letters supporting his motion.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) permits service by following the law of the state where service occurs or by leaving the summons at the defendant’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion. The court explained that residence is a factual question and that an address can qualify as a person’s dwelling only when it has sufficient signs of permanence.
Komorek and his wife submitted sworn statements saying that Komorek did not live and had never lived at the Wellston address. The plaintiffs submitted Kraft’s sworn statement that Komorek’s wife told him Komorek was officially still living there, although he sometimes stayed at a motel in Columbus. The court found this evidence insufficient to establish that the Wellston address was Komorek’s permanent residence. The court also concluded that Komorek’s previous failure to challenge service at that address in another case did not prove his current residence there, and that a business address for a company he operates did not establish his residence.
Ruling
The court ordered that service on Komorek was VACATED. It ordered the plaintiffs to serve him by September 12, 2023. The court DENIED Komorek’s request for sanctions because he provided no basis to conclude that sanctions were warranted.
The court also ADJOURNED the case management conference to September 21, 2023, at 4:10 p.m., to be held by telephone, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Docket Nos. 22, 26, 27, and 32.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.