Rizvi v. Allstate Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Rai v. Rai

    21 Civ. 11145 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023)   Cited 6 times

    “Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) requires a party to ‘state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs,' dismissal is not the appropriate remedy for a failure to state claims in separate counts.” Rizvi v. Allstate Corp., No. 3:18-CV-01921 (VAB), 2019 WL 4674658, at *4 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2019) (quoting Haberkamp v. Steele, 1992 WL 84544, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 1992)). Such a motion is more properly brought under Rule 12(e).

  2. Deptula v. Rosen

    558 F. Supp. 3d 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)   Cited 43 times

    This goes beyond a mere technical flaw and plainly violates Rule 4(b)." Rizvi v. Allstate Corp. , 2019 WL 4674658, at *6 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2019), appeal dismissed (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2019). Thus, even if plaintiff's October 29, 2020 service effort were timely, and even if it complied with Rules 4(e) and 4(h), it would not satisfy "the procedural requirement of service of summons," Omni Capital , 484 U.S. at 104, 108 S.Ct. 404, as required before this Court could assert personal jurisdiction over defendants.

  3. Deptula v. Rosen

    20-CV-2371 (JPC) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2021)

    This goes beyond a mere technical flaw and plainly violates Rule 4(b)." Rizvi v. Allstate Corp., 2019 WL 4674658, at *6 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2019), appeal dismissed (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2019). Thus, even if plaintiff's October 29, 2020 service effort were timely, and even if it complied with Rules 4(e) and 4(h), it would not satisfy "the procedural requirement of service of summons," Omni Capital, 484 U.S. at 104, as required before this Court could assert personal jurisdiction over defendants.