Shine v. Anderson
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-00387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Shine v. Anderson, Judge Roman extended service time and ordered the Marshals Service to serve Anderson after an unsuccessful attempt.
Larin Shine and Jamie Anderson; the order also directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take steps to serve Anderson.
What happened
In Shine v. Anderson, Larin Shine, representing himself, sued Jamie Anderson under the court’s diversity jurisdiction and sought $5 million in damages. Shine had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, so the court and U.S. Marshals Service were responsible for attempting service.
The Marshals Service tried three times in June 2023 but did not complete service. Shine later asked for a new summons and said he had not received notice that the earlier attempts failed. The court found that this showed a valid reason to extend the service deadline.
Judge Nelson S. Roman extended the time for service and directed the Clerk of Court to issue a new summons and prepare the necessary paperwork. He ordered the Marshals Service to serve Anderson using a method allowed by New York law, including attaching the papers to Anderson’s door and mailing copies.
The detailed version
- Shine v. Anderson · No. 7:23-cv-00387
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 26, 2023
Background
Larin Shine brought this case against Jamie Anderson under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Shine was proceeding without a lawyer and sought $5 million in damages. The court had previously granted Shine permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In that situation, federal law requires the court to direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant.
The court had previously directed service of the complaint and declaration on Anderson. The Marshals Service reported that it unsuccessfully attempted service once on June 12, 2023, and twice on June 13, 2023. On October 3, 2023, Shine asked the court to issue a new summons. Shine stated that he had not received mailed notice of the unsuccessful service attempts and learned about them only after calling to check the case’s status.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 generally requires service within 90 days after summonses are issued. The court explained that a plaintiff should request additional time when service is not completed within that period, and that the court may extend the deadline when the plaintiff shows good cause. The court found good cause because Shine said he did not receive notice of the failed service attempts and became aware of them only by checking on the case.
The court also explained that service on an individual may be made under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service occurs. It stated that New York law permits service outside New York under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 308(4). That method, sometimes called “nail and mail,” permits placing the summons at the defendant’s actual place of business, dwelling, or usual place of abode and mailing the papers.
Order
The court extended the time for service. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Anderson, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with Anderson’s address, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the complaint and declaration. The court directed the Marshals Service to make service under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 308(4). It also directed the Clerk to mail Shine a copy of the order and record that mailing on the docket.
This order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying claims or whether either party was entitled to damages.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.