Mercedes v. Underground Liquidation Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-04766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mercedes v. Underground Liquidation, Judge Caproni extended Mercedes’s service deadline and required proof that “John Doe” could accept service for the company.
Cesar Mercedes and Underground Liquidation Inc. The order required Mercedes to provide additional evidence or serve the company again, while giving him additional time to complete service.
What happened
In Mercedes v. Underground Liquidation Inc., Cesar Mercedes sued the company. The opinion says the case was filed on June 6, 2023, and that Mercedes later filed proof that a person identified as “John Doe—Name Refused” had received the summons and complaint for the company.
The process server described that person as a manager authorized to accept service. The court explained that a corporation must be served through an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized to receive legal papers. The company had not appeared or responded.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Mercedes by September 22, 2023, either to provide credible evidence that John Doe was authorized to accept service or to serve the company again and file proof. She also extended the deadline for serving the company to September 22.
The detailed version
- Mercedes v. Underground Liquidation Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04766
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 15, 2023
Background
Cesar Mercedes filed this action against Underground Liquidation Inc., doing business as Magic Mattress R Us. The opinion states that the action was filed on June 6, 2023. On July 19, 2023, Mercedes filed proof that a process server had served the summons and complaint on July 14, 2023, on “JOHN DOE-NAME REFUSED.” The process server described that person as “Manager/Authorized to Accept Service.”
Service requirements
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(B) and New York law, a corporation must be served through an officer, a managing or general agent, or another agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service. The court stated that Mercedes had the burden of showing a basis to infer that the particular person served was authorized to accept service. The opinion cited decisions explaining that a person who works at a business and refuses to give a name does not, without more, qualify as an authorized agent.
Deadlines and order
The court stated that, if service had been proper, the company’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond would have been August 4, 2023. It also stated that Mercedes’s deadline to properly serve the company had been September 4, 2023. The company had not appeared, answered, or otherwise responded.
The court ordered Mercedes, no later than September 22, 2023, to do one of two things: file credible evidence supporting the process server’s claimed knowledge that John Doe was authorized to accept service, or serve the company again and file supporting proof of service that complied with the federal rules. The court also extended Mercedes’s deadline to serve the company to September 22, 2023, effective as of the earlier deadline. This order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.