Management Consulting Group, GmbH v. OPTA Group LLC
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-05851
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In MCGM v. OPTA Group, Judge Castel dismissed claims against six defendants without prejudice because MCGM failed to timely serve them.
MCGM’s claims against Kay Michel, Kevin Daugherty, Speyside Private Fund Advisers LLC, Speyside Private Fund LLP, Speyside Equity LLC, and Speyside Equity Fund LLP were dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not state that claims against the other defendants were dismissed.
What happened
Management Consulting Group, GmbH v. OPTA Group LLC involved claims against several defendants added or named in the case. The court had required MCGM to explain when and how it served certain defendants and why any unserved defendants should not be dismissed.
MCGM acknowledged that it had not timely served Kay Michel, Kevin Daugherty, Speyside Private Fund Advisers LLC, Speyside Private Fund LLP, Speyside Equity LLC, and Speyside Equity Fund LLP. MCGM did not claim good cause for the delays or ask for more time. It later claimed that Speyside Equity LLC had been served through the Delaware Secretary of State, but the court did not decide whether that service was valid.
Judge Castel dismissed without prejudice all claims against those six defendants because they were not served within the time required by the federal service rule and MCGM had not shown good cause. The order did not dismiss the claims against the other defendants identified in the opinion.
The detailed version
- Management Consulting Group, GmbH v. OPTA Group LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05851
- P. Castel
- Apr. 29, 2024
Background
MCGM filed the complaint in New York Supreme Court on December 31, 2021. OPTA Group LLC removed the case to federal court on July 8, 2022. MCGM then filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2022, adding Kay Michel, Kevin Daugherty, Jeff Stone, Oliver Maier, OPTA Minerals, Inc., Speyside Private Fund Advisers LLC, Speyside Private Fund LLP, and Speyside Equity 1 LP as defendants.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If service is not completed on time, the court must dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice or order service within a specified period. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the service period. The court noted that MCGM did not request an extension and did not previously inform the court of difficulties serving the defendants. MCGM also did not argue that good cause existed for its failure to serve any defendant on time.
Defendants at Issue
The court dismissed all claims against the following defendants:
- Kay Michel: MCGM acknowledged that it made no attempt to serve Michel and stated that he was beyond the court’s jurisdiction. MCGM did not show good cause or request more time. - Kevin Daugherty: MCGM attempted service at an East 86th Street address in Manhattan on October 10, 2022, but a doorman said Daugherty did not live there. MCGM could not locate a new address but did not show good cause or request an extension. - Speyside Private Fund Advisers LLC: MCGM attempted service at an office building in Brighton, Michigan, on October 10,
- Building staff reported that the defendant was no longer there and had left no forwarding address. MCGM did not show good cause or request more time. - Speyside Private Fund LLP: MCGM attempted service at an East 86th Street address in Manhattan on October 17, 2022, but the process server reported that the defendant was unknown. MCGM did not show good cause or request an extension. - Speyside Equity LLC: This defendant was already in the case when it was removed, so the 90-day service period ended on October 6,
- MCGM later claimed that it served the company through the Delaware Secretary of State on January 19,
- The court noted possible questions about whether that service complied with Delaware law, including requirements involving the registered agent and a payment to the Secretary of State, but it did not decide the validity of the claimed service. Instead, it relied on the untimeliness of service and MCGM’s failure to show good cause. - Speyside Equity Fund LLP: The service period ended on October 6,
- A defense letter stated that, as far as the defendants knew, no entity with that name existed. MCGM’s later filing did not address this defendant, and no affidavit of service was filed.
Ruling
The court concluded that these six defendants were not timely served under Rule 4(m) and that MCGM had not shown good cause for the failures. Judge Castel therefore dismissed without prejudice all claims against Kay Michel, Kevin Daugherty, Speyside Private Fund Advisers LLC, Speyside Private Fund LLP, Speyside Equity LLC, and Speyside Equity Fund LLP. The order did not state a disposition of claims against the other defendants.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.