Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 1, 2024

Serendip LLC v. Joseph

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:24-cv-01256
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Serendip LLC v. Joseph, Judge Furman adjourned the conference and required clarification or proper service under the Hague Convention.

Who this affects

Serendip LLC must address the possible service defect and notify Joseph or his attorneys; Joseph’s ability to receive formal notice and participate in the case is affected. The initial pretrial conference was postponed.

What happened

Serendip LLC sued Paul Joseph, but the court said service of the complaint and summons may not have been proper. Joseph had not appeared, so the court postponed the initial pretrial conference from May 8 to June 26, 2024.

The court explained that service abroad generally must use an internationally agreed method, including the Hague Convention when it applies. Because the United Kingdom is a signatory and the Hague Convention governs service in this case, the court said the Clerk’s mailing did not appear to satisfy the service requirements.

Judge Furman ordered Serendip to explain by May 10 why the mailing was proper, or otherwise report by June 14 on its progress serving Joseph under the Hague Convention. Serendip also had to notify Joseph’s attorneys of the order and file proof of that notice by May 6.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Serendip LLC v. Joseph · No. 1:24-cv-01256
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
May 1, 2024

Background

Serendip LLC filed its complaint on February 20, 2024. The initial pretrial conference was scheduled for May 8, 2024. The court noted that Paul Joseph had not appeared and that service of the complaint and summons might have been improper.

Service issue

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service on an individual outside the United States. It permits service through an internationally agreed method reasonably calculated to provide notice, such as methods authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. A clerk’s mailing under Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) is permitted only when there is no internationally agreed method of service.

The court stated that the United Kingdom is a signatory to the Hague Convention and that the Convention governs service in this case. The only proof of service on the docket was the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing under Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii). The court therefore concluded that Serendip did not appear to have completed service consistent with the Hague Convention’s requirements.

Order

The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference from May 8 to June 26, 2024. It directed Serendip to file, by May 10, a letter explaining why service by the Clerk’s mail was proper if Serendip held that position. Otherwise, Serendip had to file, by June 14, a status update describing its progress in serving Joseph under the Hague Convention.

The court also directed Serendip to serve a copy of the order on each attorney for Joseph and file proof of that notice by May 6. If the attorneys receiving the order did not know Joseph’s counsel, they had to promptly send the order to Joseph personally. The order did not resolve the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.