Jones v. Combs
1:24-cv-01457
S.D.N.Y.May 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Rodney Jones was required by the court to serve Defendants Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Justin Combs by a deadline of November 8, 2024, after a prior extension.
- Jones failed to meet the service deadline without serving either defendant or requesting a further extension.
- Jones subsequently requested the court's permission to use alternative service by newspaper publication, citing unsuccessful traditional service attempts.
- Evidence showed that most substantial attempts to serve were made shortly before the deadline and included errors or incomplete efforts, such as wrong addresses and not using available service alternatives.
- For both defendants, the efforts to serve were deemed insufficient, with important methods either not used or not shown to be impracticable.
- The court evaluated compliance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and New York CPLR § 308, focusing on whether traditional service was impracticable before authorizing alternative service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alternative service is warranted | Jones argued unsuccessful attempts justify publication | Not detailed in opinion | Denied; insufficient showing that traditional means impracticable |
| Whether good cause exists for failure to serve | Plaintiff tried various addresses and methods | Not detailed in opinion | Denied; attempts were last-minute and not diligent |
| Proper use of nail-and-mail service | Plaintiff did not document but suggested impracticality | Not detailed in opinion | Denied; no evidence that nail-and-mail was impracticable |
| Dismissal of claims for non-service | Plaintiff sought to keep claims viable via alt. service | Not detailed in opinion | Claims against Gooding, Jr. and Combs dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortunato v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 11-CV-6608 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Plaintiff not required to prove due diligence, but must show impracticability for alternative service)
- Ahluwalia v. St. George’s Univ., LLC, 63 F. Supp. 3d 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Service to a guard at gated community acceptable under New York law)
- Lateral Recovery LLC v. Benchmark Builders, Inc., 22-CV-10447 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (Conclusory assertions about difficulty do not suffice for alternative service)
- Cargill Fin. Servs. Int’l, Inc. v. Barshchovskiy, 24-CV-5751 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (Plaintiff must show traditional service was not possible before resorting to alternative means)