Wright v. Mail Media Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-07124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wright v. Mail Media Inc., Judge Carter denied Wright’s motion for service costs because the Rule 4 waiver request lacked prepaid return envelopes.
Wright was not awarded the requested service costs; the defendants were not ordered to pay those costs.
What happened
In Wright v. Mail Media Inc., Wright asked the court to award costs incurred in serving the defendants after they did not waive service.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a waiver request to include a prepaid way to return the waiver form. The record did not show that Wright included self-addressed, stamped envelopes, and an email suggested they may have been missing.
Judge Carter denied Wright’s motion because failing to include the envelopes meant Wright had not substantially followed the rule’s requirements. The order did not award service costs.
The detailed version
- Wright v. Mail Media Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07124
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
Wright filed the complaint on August 11, 2023. On August 12, Wright sent the defendants’ registered agent and prior counsel notices and forms asking them to waive formal service of the lawsuit. Wright later moved for costs of service.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d), when a plaintiff makes a proper request for a defendant to waive service and the defendant does not do so, the court must impose the costs and expenses of making service, including attorney’s fees for a motion needed to collect those costs. The request must include, among other things, two copies of the waiver form and a prepaid way to return the form.
The court explained that a plaintiff generally needs to show substantial compliance with these requirements. Some technical errors may still satisfy that standard, but failing to include a self-addressed, stamped envelope can eliminate the ability to obtain a costs award.
Ruling
The defendants stated that Wright’s mailing did not include a prepaid return method. A later email from Wright’s agent acknowledged that the mailing may not have included self-addressed, stamped envelopes. Although a later declaration stated that Wright believed the envelopes had been included, the court found no other evidence supporting that assertion.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. held that Wright’s failure to include self-addressed, stamped envelopes meant Wright had not substantially complied with Rule 4(d)(1). The court therefore denied Wright’s motion for costs.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.