Campos v. Ingber et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
APPEARANCES
For 	Plaintiff
Cristina Campos: 	Daniel S. Szalkiewicz, Esq.
Veridian Legal P.C.
23 West 73rd Street, Suite 102
New York, New York 10023
For 	Defendants
Ronald 	Ingber 	&
Amy Ingber: 	Adam I. Kleinberg, Esq.
Guercio & Guercio LLP
77 Conklin Street
Farmingdale, New York 11735
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Presently before the Court is a Rule 72(a) Motion filed
by Defendants Ronald Ingber (“Ronald”) and Amy Ingber (“Amy”, and
collectively 	with 	Ronald, 	“Defendants”) 	in 	the 	above-captioned
action 	(the 	“Action”). 	(See 	Rule 	72(a) 	Motion, 	ECF 	No. 	29; 	Rule
72(a) 	Support 	Memo, 	ECF 	No. 	29-9; 	Motion 	to 	Vacate, 	ECF 	No. 	22.)
Defendants 	seek 	to 	vacate 	two 	orders 	issued 	by 	Magistrate 	Judge
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑X
CRISTINA CAMPOS,
Plaintiff,
‑against‑
RONALD 	DAVID 	INGBER 	and 	AMY
INGBER,
Defendants.
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑X
ORDER
25-cv-05478 (JS)(AYS)
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Anne 	Y. 	Shields 	in 	favor 	of 	Plaintiff 	Cristina 	Campos
(“Plaintiff”). 	The first order, issued on March 30, 2026, granted
a 	motion 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	to 	serve 	Ronald 	with 	a 	summons
and amended complaint, ten days after Plaintiff filed the motion,
without 	opposition 	from 	Defendants. 	(Rule 	72(a) 	Support 	Memo 	at
1; March 30, 2026 Order (the “March 30 Order”); see also Extension
Motion, 	ECF 	No. 	19; 	Extension 	Motion 	Support 	Memo, 	ECF 	No. 	19-2,
attached 	to 	Extension 	Motion.) 	The 	second 	order, 	issued 	on 	April
13, 2026, denied Defendants’ initial motion to vacate the March 30
Order. 	(Rule 	72(a) 	Support 	Memo 	at 	1; 	see 	also 	April 	13, 	2026
Order 	(the 	“April 	13 	Order”, 	and 	collectively 	with 	the 	March 	30
Order, 	the 	“Magistrate 	Orders”).) 	Because 	Judge 	Shields 	ruled 	on
the March 30 Order before the 14-day response period under E.D.N.Y.
Local 	Civil 	Rule 	6.1 	expired, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	Defendants’ 	Rule
72(a) Motion. 	Nevertheless, the Court has serious concerns about
the 	manner 	in 	which 	Ronald 	has 	raised 	his 	service-of-process
defense, as discussed below.
I. 	Factual Background
A. 	Attempted Service of Process
On 	October 	1, 	2025, 	Plaintiff 	filed 	her 	initial
complaint 	against 	Ronald, 	under 	a 	“Jane 	Doe” 	pseudonym, 	in
Brooklyn, New York.1 	(See Initial Compl., ECF No. 1.) On October
1 	On 	October 	3, 	2025, 	Defendants’ 	counsel 	emailed 	Plaintiff
indicating he was authorized to execute a waiver of service, but,
according 	to 	Defendants, 	Plaintiff’s 	counsel 	never 	responded.
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
6, 2025, Plaintiff attempted to serve Ronald through Terrance Kelly
(“Kelly”), a process server with ABC Legal. 	(See Proof of Service,
ECF 	No. 	8; 	Szalkiewicz 	Decl. 	¶ 	3, 	ECF 	No. 	19-1, 	attached 	to
Extension 	Motion.) 	Kelly 	and 	Ronald 	have 	diverging 	accounts 	of
what transpired during the service attempt.
1. 	Kelly’s Version of Events
In 	his 	Proof 	of 	Service, 	Kelly 	certified 	that 	he
personally 	served 	the 	summons 	on 	Ronald 	at 	his 	residence 	in 	Dix
Hills, New York, on October 6, 2025, and stated:
I delivered the documents, SUMMONS; COMPLAINT;
MOTION 	FOR 	LEAVE; 	MEMO 	OF 	LAW, 	to 	Ron 	Ingber
with identity confirmed by subject saying yes
when 	named. 	The 	individual 	accepted 	service
with security camera (documents left, seen by
subject). 	The 	individual 	appeared 	to 	be 	a
brown-haired 	white 	male 	contact 	5’10”-6’0”
tall and weighing over 300 lbs.
(Proof of Service at 1.)
2. 	Ronald’s Version of Events
In 	a 	declaration 	filed 	with 	the 	Court, 	Ronald, 	an
attorney, represents that he was at his law office in Mineola, New
York, 	at 	the 	time 	he 	was 	supposedly 	served 	in 	Dix 	Hills. 	(See
Ronald 	Decl. 	¶ 	4, 	ECF 	No. 	29-5, 	attached 	to 	Rule 	72(a) 	Motion.)
While 	in 	Mineola, 	Ronald 	said 	he 	spoke 	to 	the 	process 	server
remotely 	through 	his 	Ring 	doorbell 	system, 	which 	allows 	users 	to
(See 	Oct. 	3, 	2025 	Email 	Exchange, 	ECF 	No. 	19-8, 	attached 	to
Extension Motion; Rule 72(a) Support Memo at 16.)
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
communicate with individuals standing at their door. 	(Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)
Ronald explains he told the process server through the Ring system
that 	no 	one 	was 	home 	to 	accept 	service, 	so 	the 	server 	“proceeded
to 	leave 	the 	papers 	in 	an 	envelope 	at 	or 	near 	the 	door.” 	(Id. 	¶
7.) 	Ronald 	further 	contends 	Kelly 	misidentified 	his 	height 	as 	no
more 	than 	six 	feet 	tall, 	when 	he 	is 	six 	feet 	five 	inches 	tall.
(Id. ¶ 14.) No subsequent attempts were made to serve Ronald after
October 6, 2025. 	(Rule 72(a) Support Memo at 4.)
3. 	Subsequent Litigation Activity
Despite the allegedly deficient service, Ronald quickly
began 	litigating 	in 	the 	Action 	by 	filing 	(1) 	an 	October 	20, 	2025
Motion 	to 	Change 	Venue 	from 	Brooklyn 	to 	Central 	Islip, 	New 	York;
(2) an October 20, 2025 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed
Under 	a 	Pseudonym; 	and 	(3) 	an 	October 	27, 	2025 	Letter 	Motion 	for
a 	Pre-Motion 	Conference 	in 	anticipation 	of 	moving 	to 	dismiss
Plaintiff’s 	Initial 	Complaint. 	(See 	Motion 	to 	Change 	Venue, 	ECF
No. 	9; 	Pseudonym 	Opp’n, 	ECF 	No. 	11; 	First 	PMC 	Request, 	ECF 	No.
12.) None of these filings contended service was improper.2
2 Although Ronald did not raise arguments as to service-of-process
in 	these 	filings, 	declarations 	from 	Ronald’s 	counsel 	attached 	to
the 	Motion 	to 	Change 	Venue 	and 	Pseudonym 	Opposition 	state
“Plaintiff 	commenced 	suit 	on 	October 	1, 	2025, 	and 	claims 	to 	have
effectuated service of process on October 6, 2025.” 	(See Kleinberg
Venue Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 9-1, attached to Motion to Change Venue;
Kleinberg Pseudonym Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 11-1, attached to Pseudonym
Opp’n.)
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
On January 16, 2026, Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo granted
the Motion to Change Venue. 	(See Jan. 16, 2026 Order.) On January
21, 2026, the Action was reassigned to Judge Seybert and Magistrate
Judge 	Shields. 	(See 	Jan. 	21, 	2026 	Order.) 	On 	February 	2, 	2026,
the Court granted Ronald’s First PMC Request and set March 2, 2026,
as 	the 	deadline 	for 	service 	of 	his 	anticipated 	motion 	to 	dismiss
on Plaintiff. 	(See Feb. 2, 2026 Order.)
4. 	Ronald’s 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss, 	Service 	of 	Process
Argument, and Plaintiff’s Motions
On 	March 	2, 	2026, 	Ronald 	served 	his 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss
and 	accompanying 	Support 	Memo, 	arguing 	Plaintiff’s 	Initial
Complaint should be dismissed for failure to serve process. 	(See
Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	Support 	Memo, 	ECF 	No. 	29-8, 	attached 	to 	Rule
72(a) Motion.) The Motion was accompanied by Ronald’s Declaration,
as well as a declaration from his law partner, Jeffrey Siler. 	(See
Ronald 	Decl.; 	Siler 	Decl., 	ECF 	No. 	29-7, 	attached 	to 	Rule 	72(a)
Motion.) Siler stated he was with Ronald in Mineola on October 6,
2025 	and 	personally 	heard 	Ronald 	speak 	with 	the 	process 	server.3
(See Siler Decl.)
On March 20, 2026, Plaintiff responded by filing (1) her
First 	Amended 	Complaint 	(the 	“FAC”, 	ECF 	No. 	18) 	and 	(2) 	a 	Motion
3 	The 	Motion 	also 	included 	an 	exhibit 	stating 	the 	Ring 	doorbell
footage 	from 	the 	attempted 	service 	would 	“be 	provided 	under
separate 	cover,” 	but 	does 	not 	include 	any 	kind 	of 	link 	to 	access
the footage. 	(Ex. 1, ECF No. 29-6, attached to Rule 72(a) Motion.)
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
for Extension of Time to serve the FAC under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m).4 	(See Extension Motion; Extension Motion Support
Memo.) 	In 	a 	declaration 	accompanying 	the 	Extension 	Motion,
Plaintiff’s 	counsel 	stated 	“[d]espite 	multiple 	filings, 	and
several emails back and forth between counsel, the first time any
issues 	of 	service 	were 	raised 	was 	in 	the 	defendant’s 	motion 	to
dismiss” and took the position that “[w]hile service may have been
proper, to avoid all doubts, Plaintiff files this motion to extend
the period of time to re-serve” Ronald. 	(Szalkiewicz Decl. ¶¶ 9,
11, 	ECF 	No. 	19-1, 	attached 	to 	Extension 	Motion.) 	Plaintiff’s
counsel 	also 	exhibits 	several 	documents 	from 	ABC 	Legal 	facially
substantiating 	service 	of 	process, 	including: 	emails 	from 	ABC
Legal 	confirming 	Ronald 	had 	been 	served; 	a 	separate 	message 	from
Kelly 	confirming 	the 	same; 	and 	GPS 	coordinates 	and 	photos 	of
Ronald’s house. 	(See ABC Legal Service Confirmation, ECF No. 19-3,
attached 	to 	Extension 	Motion; 	ABC 	Legal 	Service 	Signature
Confirmation, ECF No. 19-4, attached to Extension Motion; ABC Legal
Screenshots, ECF No. 19-6, attached to Extension Motion.)
5. 	The 	Magistrate 	Orders, 	Motion 	to 	Vacate, 	and 	Rule
72(a) Motion
At 	the 	time 	Judge 	Shields 	granted 	the 	Extension 	Motion
in 	the 	March 	30 	Order, 	Defendants 	had 	not 	yet 	served 	or 	filed 	an
4 The FAC added Amy as a Defendant and asserted additional causes
of action. (See generally FAC.)
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
opposition to the Extension Motion. 	(See March 30 Order.) 	Later
that day, shortly after the March 30 Order was posted, Defendants’
counsel filed a letter with the Court explaining that counsel for
both parties had been in contact that morning; Plaintiff’s counsel
had previously consented to a one-week extension for Defendants to
respond 	to 	the 	FAC; 	and 	Defendants 	were 	awaiting 	Plaintiff’s
response 	to 	their 	proposal 	to 	address 	the 	Extension 	Motion.5
(Defs.’ Mar. 30 Letter, ECF No. 20, at 1.)
On 	March 	31, 	2026, 	Ronald 	filed 	a 	pre-motion 	letter
before Judge Shields seeking to vacate the March 30 Order, to which
Plaintiff 	filed 	an 	opposition 	on 	April 	7, 	2026. 	(See 	PMC 	to
Vacate, ECF No. 22; PMC to Vacate Opp’n, ECF No. 24.) On April 13,
2026, Judge Shields issued the April 13 Order, which stated:
The 	Court 	construes 	Defendant’s 	pre-motion
conference 	request 	as 	the 	motion 	to 	vacate
itself 	and, 	as 	such, 	denies 	the 	motion.
Defendant 	has 	offered 	no 	proper 	basis 	for
vacating 	the 	Court’s 	Order, 	particularly 	in
light 	of 	the 	fact 	that 	Defendant 	has 	now
sought 	leave 	from 	the 	District 	Court 	to 	move
to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court’s
Order permitting Plaintiff additional time to
serve 	Defendant 	with 	the 	Amended 	Complaint
remains 	in 	effect. 	So 	Ordered 	by 	Magistrate
Judge Anne Y. Shields on 4/13/2026.
(April 13 Order.)
5 Defendants’ proposal was for Plaintiff to “withdra[w] the motion
and fil[e] the required pre-motion letter, and one week thereafter
for [Defendants’] response.” 	(Id.)
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
On May 26, 2026, Defendants filed their Rule 72(a) Motion
before 	this 	Court, 	arguing 	the 	March 	30 	Order 	and, 	by 	extension,
the 	April 	13 	Order 	should 	be 	vacated 	because 	the 	March 	30 	Order
was 	prematurely 	issued.6 	(Rule 	72(a) 	Support 	Memo 	at 	1, 	11-12.)
Under 	E.D.N.Y. 	Local 	Civil 	Rule 	6.1(b), 	Defendants 	contend 	they
should 	have 	been 	afforded 	14 	days 	to 	respond 	to 	the 	Extension
Motion, 	rather 	than 	the 	10 	they 	were 	given. 	(Id. 	at 	11-12; 	see
also 	E.D.N.Y. 	Local 	Civ. 	R. 	6.1(b) 	(providing, 	for 	civil 	motions
other 	than 	those 	made 	under 	Federal 	Rules 	26 	through 	37, 	“any
opposing 	or 	response 	papers 	must 	be 	served 	within 	14 	days 	after
service of the moving papers”).)
Although 	Plaintiff 	did 	not 	file 	an 	opposition 	to 	the
Rule 	72(a) 	Motion, 	her 	opposition 	to 	the 	PMC 	to 	Vacate
characterized 	Defendants’ 	request 	as 	one 	for 	relief 	under 	Rule
60(b), 	which 	“is 	generally 	not 	favored” 	and 	is 	“a 	mechanism 	for
extraordinary 	judicial 	relief 	invoked 	only 	if 	the 	moving 	party
demonstrates exceptional circumstances.” 	(PMC to Vacate Opp’n at
1 (citing SEC v. Cohen, 671 F. Supp. 3d 319, 322 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)).)
6 	Defendants 	had 	previously 	served 	the 	Rule 	72(a) 	Motion 	on
Plaintiff on April 27, 2026 and filed their Motion Cover Letter on
the docket. 	(See Rule 72(a) Motion Cover Letter, ECF No. 27.)
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
DISCUSSION
I. 	Applicable Law
Pursuant 	to 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	72(a), 	a
party 	has 	the 	option 	of 	objecting 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	order
concerning 	any 	non-dispositive 	pretrial 	matter. 	See 	F ED. R. C IV.
P. 72(a). 	The district judge “must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
or 	is 	contrary 	to 	law.” 	Id.; 	see 	also 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b)(1)(A)
(“A 	judge 	of 	the 	court 	may 	reconsider 	any 	[non-dispositive]
pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that the magistrate
judge’s 	order 	is 	clearly 	erroneous 	or 	contrary 	to 	law.”). 	“An
order is ‘clearly erroneous’ only if a reviewing court, considering
the entirety of the evidence, ‘is left with the definite and firm
conviction 	that 	a 	mistake 	has 	been 	committed’; 	an 	order 	is
‘contrary 	to 	law’ 	when 	it 	‘fails 	to 	apply 	or 	misapplies 	relevant
statutes, 	case 	law, 	or 	rules 	of 	procedure.’” 	Centro 	De 	La
Comunidad 	Hispana 	De 	Locust 	Valley 	v. 	Town 	of 	Oyster 	Bay, 	954 	F.
Supp. 	2d 	127, 	139 	(E.D.N.Y. 	2013), 	aff’d, 	868 	F.3d 	104 	(2d 	Cir.
2017) (quotations and citations omitted). 	Moreover, “[u]nder the
clearly erroneous standard of review of Rule 72(a), the magistrate
judge’s 	findings 	should 	not 	be 	rejected 	merely 	because 	the 	court
would 	have 	decided 	the 	matter 	differently.” 	Ross 	Univ. 	Sch. 	of
Med., 	Ltd. 	v. 	Brooklyn-Queens 	Health 	Care, 	Inc., 	No. 	09-CV-1410,
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
2013 WL 1334271, *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
II. 	Application
A. 	The March 30 Order Was Prematurely Issued
Under 	E.D.N.Y. 	Local 	Civil 	Rule 	6.1, 	“[o]n 	all 	civil
motions, petitions, and applications, other than” those made under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 and 45(d)(3), “any
opposing 	or 	response 	papers 	must 	be 	served 	within 	14 	days 	after
service 	of 	the 	moving 	papers.” 	E.D.N.Y. 	Local 	Civ. 	R. 	6.1(b).
Because Plaintiff’s Extension Motion was made pursuant to Federal
Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	4(m), 	Defendants 	are 	correct: 	Local 	Rule
6.1(b) afforded them 14 days to file an opposition. 	Accordingly,
the 	Court 	is 	left 	“with 	the 	definite 	and 	firm 	conviction 	that 	a
mistake has been committed”, because Defendants were subjected to
an 	unforeseen 	decision 	that 	foreclosed 	their 	opportunity 	to
respond. 	Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, 954 F.
Supp. 2d at 139. 	Although no party has affirmatively raised this
issue, 	at 	least 	one 	district 	court 	has 	held 	that 	the 	“clearly
erroneous 	or 	contrary 	to 	law” 	standard 	applies 	to 	a 	magistrate
judge’s application of local rules in the same manner as it applies
to statutes. 	See Schrader v. Wynn, No. 19-CV-2159, 2021 WL 619376,
at *4 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2021) (“the magistrate judge clearly erred
in 	her 	application 	of 	LR 	7-2”); 	see 	also 	Sooroojballie 	v. 	Port
Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 816 F. App'x 536, 551 n.8 (2d Cir.
2020) 	(holding 	a 	district 	court 	erred 	by 	prematurely 	granting 	a
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
fee 	application 	before 	the 	14-day 	period 	in 	Local 	Civil 	Rule 	6.1
expired).
Plaintiff’s 	attempt 	to 	characterize 	the 	Magistrate
Orders 	as 	final 	orders 	subject 	to 	Rule 	60(b) 	is 	unavailing, 	as
Rule 	60(b) 	applies 	only 	to 	a 	“final 	judgment, 	order, 	or
proceeding.” 	See 	FED. 	R. 	C IV. 	P. 	60(b). 	This 	proposed
interpretation 	is 	inconsistent 	with 	the 	Supreme 	Court’s 	recent
analysis of Rule 60(b) in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc., which explained a court’s power under Rule 60(b) “kicks in”
only “[a]fter a case is finally terminated,” as “a court no longer
presides” at that point. 	604 U.S. 305, 313 (2025). 	Accordingly,
the 	Rule 	72(a) 	Motion 	is 	GRANTED 	to 	the 	extent 	the 	Magistrate
Orders are vacated.
B. 	The Court’s Concerns on the Service of Process Issue
Although 	the 	Court 	is 	granting 	the 	Rule 	72(a) 	Motion,
and 	reserves 	decision 	on 	the 	Extension 	Motion, 	it 	nonetheless
wishes to remind the parties of some basic principles relevant to
Rule 4(m).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff
has 	ninety 	days 	after 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	complaint 	to 	serve 	the
defendant, although the Court must extend the time for service if
“good cause” is shown. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 	“The purpose of
Rule 4(m) is to prod the slow-footed plaintiff, not to reward the
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
crafty 	or 	evasive 	defendant.” 	Adams 	v. 	Abrahim, 	No. 	24-CV-9378,
2026 	WL 	1080330, 	at 	*5 	(S.D.N.Y. 	Feb. 	3, 	2026), 	report 	and
recommendation 	adopted 	sub 	nom. 	Adams 	v. 	Gharib, 	No. 	24-CV-9378,
2026 WL 810313 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2026). 	Additionally, the Second
Circuit has a longstanding “preference that litigation disputes be
resolved 	on 	the 	merits.” 	Cody 	v. 	Mello, 	59 	F.3d 	13, 	15 	(2d 	Cir.
1995).
Against 	this 	backdrop, 	the 	Court 	has 	serious 	concerns
about how Ronald raised the service issue. 	In the weeks following
the alleged October 6, 2025 service attempt, Ronald litigated venue
and pseudonym issues in this Action without mentioning or asserting
any problem with service. 	(See Motion to Change Venue; Pseudonym
Opp’n.) 	Most 	egregiously, 	his 	First 	PMC 	Request 	asserted 	no
service-of-process 	defense. 	(See 	First 	PMC 	Request.) 	Because 	a
central purpose of the pre-motion conference process is to identify
the 	issues 	to 	be 	raised 	in 	an 	upcoming 	motion 	to 	dismiss, 	this
omission 	is 	particularly 	troubling.7 	See 	Farag 	v. 	XYZ 	Two 	Way
Radio 	Serv., 	Inc., 	No. 	20-CV-4191, 	2022 	WL 	3030346, 	at 	*6 	n.12
(E.D.N.Y. 	Aug. 	1, 	2022) 	(explaining 	the 	pre-motion 	conference
7 Ronald’s First PMC Request was filed before the case was assigned
to 	Judge 	Seybert. 	Had 	it 	been 	filed 	after 	Judge 	Seybert 	received
the 	case, 	his 	failure 	to 	raise 	the 	service-of-process 	defense 	in
the 	First 	PMC 	Request 	would 	have 	waived 	the 	issue. 	See 	Seybert
Individual 	Rule 	III(B)(3) 	(“[a]rguments 	not 	raised 	in 	the
pre-motion 	conference 	request 	or 	during 	the 	subsequent 	hearing
shall be deemed waived.”) (emphasis in original).
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
procedure provides a venue for plaintiffs to decide “whether ‘they
want 	to 	proceed 	to 	briefing 	and 	arguing 	the 	motion 	based 	on
complaint 	as 	is 	... 	or, 	having 	heard 	a 	preview 	of 	the 	defense’s
arguments, 	[whether 	they] 	want 	to 	avail 	[themselves] 	of 	right 	to
amend 	at 	this 	stage’”) 	(further 	citation 	omitted), 	aff’d, 	No.
22-1795, 2023 WL 2770219 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2023).
The 	Court’s 	concerns 	are 	further 	bolstered 	by 	the 	fact
that, while Ronald has apparently known about the alleged service
issues since October 6, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear
to 	have 	had 	actual 	knowledge 	of 	the 	service 	issues 	or, 	at 	least,
received 	several 	representations 	from 	ABC 	Legal 	that 	service 	was
effectuated 	without 	issue. 	(See 	ABC 	Legal 	Service 	Confirmation;
ABC Legal Service Signature Confirmation; ABC Legal Screenshots.)
As 	an 	attorney, 	Ronald 	should 	understand 	the 	implications 	of
declining to accept service.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	stated 	reasons, 	IT 	IS 	HEREBY 	ORDERED 	that
Defendants’ 	Rule 	72(a) 	Motion 	is 	GRANTED 	to 	the 	extent 	(1) 	March
30 and April 13, 2026 Orders issued by Judge Shields are VACATED;
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
and 	(2) 	Defendants’ 	response 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	Extension 	Motion, 	if
any, shall be filed by no later than October 23, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated: October 9, 2026
Central Islip, New York
Case 1:25-cv-05478-JS-AYS Document 44 Filed 10/09/26 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>