Thomas v. Pizarro

Background

The filing is a letter from plaintiff’s counsel concerning service of process and scheduling in Thomas v. Pizarro. Counsel stated that the amended complaint had been filed and that most defendants had either appeared or had agreed to respond by April 15, 2024. Counsel identified Anthony Pizarro and The Hughes Brothers as defendants who had not been served.

Counsel represented that repeated attempts to contact Pizarro by email had failed, that messages had also been sent through LinkedIn and Instagram, and that attempts to locate a residence or business address had been unsuccessful. Counsel similarly stated that The Hughes Brothers did not appear to have a publicly available central address for their production-company operations. These statements were made by counsel in support of the requests; the provided text does not show factual findings by the court adopting them.

Requests

The plaintiff asked for an extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) to serve Pizarro and The Hughes Brothers, proposing an additional 45 days or a deadline of May 22, 2024. The plaintiff also requested permission for alternative service, including service through known working email addresses, publicly advertised entertainment agents, or publication in Billboard or Variety.

The filing further requested that the response deadlines for appearing defendants be extended while the parties submitted a proposed standstill agreement and pursued a settlement conference. It also asked that the April 25, 2024 initial case-management conference be converted into a conference addressing referral to a magistrate judge for settlement discussions.

Legal standards discussed

The filing discussed Rule 4(m), which generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed and permits a court to extend the deadline. It also discussed Rule 4(e), which permits service on an individual by methods authorized by the law of the state where the federal court is located. The filing cited New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308, including provisions concerning personal service, delivery and mailing, and alternative methods when ordinary service cannot be completed with due diligence.

Disposition

The provided text does not contain a clear, readable statement of the court’s disposition. It ends with an endorsement and signature by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, but it does not specify whether the extension of time, alternative-service request, response-date extensions, or conference-related requests were granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the exact procedural action cannot be determined from the supplied text.