Perez Farias v. Rainbow Cleaning Service, LLC

Background

Yuri Perez Farias filed a letter-motion seeking two forms of relief. First, she requested an extension of the time to complete service of process. Second, she requested permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5) to serve individual defendants Andrii Gurskyi and Irina Sheshenko through alternative methods, including iMessage, WhatsApp, and email.

Individual Defendants

The court stated that it could not determine from counsel’s unsworn letter-motion whether Perez Farias had been diligent in making reasonable efforts to serve the individual defendants. By November 1, 2023, the court required her to provide admissible evidence, such as an affidavit or declaration with appropriate attachments, showing:

- her diligent but unsuccessful efforts to serve the individual defendants, including efforts at 453 West 47th Street, 86A East Avenue, and either 445 or 455 Park Avenue; - the basis for attempting service at 86A East Avenue; and - why the proposed alternative methods would provide notice reasonably calculated under the circumstances to inform both individual defendants about the action.

The order did not grant or deny the request for alternative service or the request for an extension.

Corporate Defendant

The opinion states that Perez Farias served Rainbow Cleaning Services LLC, referred to as “Rainbow” in the order, on April 21, 2023. Rainbow’s answer was due May 12, 2023, but Rainbow had not appeared. Perez Farias had neither agreed to give Rainbow additional time to respond nor requested a certificate of default, despite earlier instructions and warnings from the court.

The court ordered Perez Farias, by November 1, 2023, to either file a stipulation giving Rainbow additional time to respond or apply for a certificate of default. The court warned that, if she failed to comply, her claims against Rainbow may be dismissed without further notice.

Disposition and Classification

Judge Barbara Moses entered an order requiring additional evidence and procedural action. The order did not reach the merits of Perez Farias’s claims and did not finally resolve the service requests. The matter is classified as a procedural order because it addressed service of process and the next procedural step concerning the nonappearing corporate defendant.