Rodgers v. Mercy College
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-07278
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodgers v. Mercy College, Judge Schofield granted Rodgers’s request to serve Southard through her sister, Karin Nevin.
The order affects Plaintiff Timothy Rodgers, Defendant Southard, and Karin Nevin, whom the court authorized to receive and deliver Southard’s summons. It concerns only how Southard may be served; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Rodgers v. Mercy College, Timothy Rodgers asked to use an alternative way to formally deliver the lawsuit papers to Defendant Southard. He said he could not find her current home or work address despite searches in four states and hiring a private investigator.
Rodgers proposed leaving the summons with Southard’s sister, Karin Nevin. The opinion says Nevin told the investigator she would accept the summons and deliver it to Southard. Southard also appeared to know about the case after speaking with the investigator, although she did not provide an address.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the request. She ordered Rodgers to serve Southard through Nevin and to file proof that service occurred by February 6, 2024.
The detailed version
- Rodgers v. Mercy College · No. 1:23-cv-07278
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 31, 2024
Background
Timothy Rodgers requested permission to use an alternative method to serve Defendant Southard with the summons. The opinion states that Rodgers had been unable to serve Southard through traditional methods. His search for Southard’s current residential or employment address covered four states and included hiring a private investigator.
According to Rodgers, an investigator’s staff member spoke with Southard by telephone on December 29, 2023, and told her the caller was trying to locate her to serve the summons. Southard allegedly ended the call after saying the summons should be mailed to her address, without providing that address. The opinion says Southard therefore appeared to have actual notice of the action, although it does not identify Southard’s first name or describe the underlying claims.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) allows service on an individual in the United States under the law of the state where the federal district court is located. Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5), when ordinary service methods are impracticable, a court may direct another method of service. The alternative method must also satisfy constitutional due process, meaning it must be reasonably likely to inform the person of the lawsuit and give that person an opportunity to respond.
Rodgers proposed serving Southard’s sister, Karin Nevin. The opinion states that Nevin was likely to be in contact with Southard and had already told the investigator that she would accept and deliver the summons to Southard.
Ruling
The court concluded that service through Nevin was reasonably calculated to inform Southard of the action, to the extent she was not already aware of it. Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore granted Rodgers’s motion for alternative service. Rodgers was ordered to serve Southard through Karin Nevin and file proof of service by February 6, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.