Agnone v. Zoi Foods Corp.
2:24-cv-08202
| E.D.N.Y | Mar 31, 2025Background
- Pasquale Agnone, a visually impaired individual, sued Zoi Foods Corp. (operator of Wmarketnyc.com), alleging violations of the ADA and related New York State and City laws for failing to make its website accessible to blind users.
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, a declaration of discrimination, class certification, damages, and attorney's fees.
- Plaintiff filed the complaint on November 26, 2024, and was required to serve defendant within 90 days, by February 24, 2025, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
- Despite multiple attempts at three different addresses (including relying on New York Department of State records), Plaintiff only succeeded in serving Defendant on March 20, 2025, 24 days late.
- The Court required Plaintiff to justify the delay or risk dismissal without prejudice; Plaintiff responded with an extension motion citing diligent service efforts.
- Defendant made no appearance or opposition to the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely service should be excused under Rule 4(m) | Diligent, repeated service attempts at multiple addresses; circumstances beyond control | No appearance/argument | Good cause shown; extension GRANTED |
| Whether delay prejudiced Defendant | Brief delay caused little/no prejudice, Defendant received prompt notice | No appearance/argument | No substantial prejudice to Defendant |
| Sufficiency of diligence in attempting service | Multiple non-consecutive attempts at accurate state-recorded addresses, contacted prior counsel | No appearance/argument | Sufficient diligence; meets standard |
| Applicability of discretionary (non-good-cause) extension | (Raised as alternative, if no good cause) | No appearance/argument | Not reached (good cause found) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurzberg v. Ashcroft, 619 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2010) (explains the requirements for service under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)
- DeLuca v. AccessIT Group, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (discusses good cause standard and balancing diligence against prejudice)
- Vaher v. Town of Orangetown, N.Y., 916 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (defines good cause and exceptional circumstances for untimely service)
- Coleman v. Cranberry Baye Rental Agency, 202 F.R.D. 106 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (good cause found where diligent efforts made at multiple addresses)