Vaghar v. BeGreat Sports, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-03487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vaghar v. BeGreat Sports, Judge Rochon granted alternative service by email and certified mail on BeGreat Sports, LLC.
Vincent Vaghar and BeGreat Sports, LLC, concerning the permitted method of serving BeGreat with the lawsuit.
What happened
In Vaghar v. BeGreat Sports, LLC, Vincent Vaghar asked to serve BeGreat Sports, LLC through alternative methods after repeated unsuccessful attempts using traditional methods. The opinion says BeGreat is an Arizona limited liability company and that Vaghar had already been personally served.
The court found traditional service impracticable under applicable New York and Arizona rules. It also found that email service on Vaghar, together with certified mail to BeGreat and the earlier personal service on Vaghar, was reasonably likely to notify BeGreat about the lawsuit and give it an opportunity to respond.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the motion. She ordered service of the summons, complaint, and order by email to barry@begreatsports.com and by certified mail, return receipt requested, and required proof of service to be filed by November 20, 2023.
The detailed version
- Vaghar v. BeGreat Sports, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03487
- Rochon
- Oct. 20, 2023
Background
Vincent Vaghar moved to serve BeGreat Sports, LLC (“BeGreat”) by alternative means. The requested methods were email service on BeGreat’s principal and registered agent, identified in the opinion as Defendant Vincent Vaghar, and certified mail, return receipt requested, to BeGreat. Vaghar had previously been served with the summons and complaint in his personal capacity. Counsel also reported communicating by email with non-local counsel for BeGreat and Vaghar about the litigation and making repeated unsuccessful attempts to serve BeGreat through other methods over several months.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 allows service on an unincorporated association under procedures permitted by the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. The court explained that New York and Arizona rules permit alternative service on a limited liability company when traditional service is impracticable. The court also considered due process, which requires a method of service reasonably calculated to notify interested parties about the lawsuit and give them an opportunity to present objections. The court noted that courts in the district have found service by corporate email to satisfy this requirement.
Ruling and order
The court found that traditional service was impracticable and that the proposed alternative service satisfied due process. It therefore granted the motion. The court ordered Plaintiff to serve BeGreat with the summons, complaint, and a copy of the order by email at barry@begreatsports.com and to complete service by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff was ordered to file proof of service on the docket by November 20, 2023. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 29.
Uncertainty noted
The opinion contains an apparent naming inconsistency: its caption identifies Barry Gardner as a defendant, while the discussion identifies Vincent Vaghar as BeGreat’s principal and registered agent and directs email service to an address containing “barry.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.