Epstein Secrets

place of abode to reside at that location. See, e.g., Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Morse, 779 F. Supp. 347, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Al Fayed v. Barak, 833 N.Y.S. 2d 500, 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). In this case, the affidavit of service states that “John Smith” was a person of suitable age and dis

y was made on May 7, 2008, and proof of service was filed Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 3 of 5 In Tyler, the court acknowledged that, because service was made in part by mail, the 1 defendant may have the benefit of three extra days to respond per Fed.

ledged that, because service was made in part by mail, the 1 defendant may have the benefit of three extra days to respond per Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Tyler, 120 F.3d at 26. In this case, Plaintiff’s server mailed the summons and complaint on May 5, 2008. Thus, under this scheme, Defendant would have ha

place of abode to reside at that location. See, e.g., Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co... Morse, 779 F. Supp. 347, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); AI Fayed.. Barak, 833 N.Y.S. 2d 500, 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). In this case, the affidavit of service states that "John Smith" was a person of suitable age and dis

state law method of service and the state law provides a longer time in which to answer."). Thus, Defendant's response was due on May 27, 2007.2 'In Tyler, the court acknowledged that, because service was made in part by mail, the defendant may have the benefit of three extra days to respond per Fed. R

9 F. Supp. 347, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); AI Fayed I. Barak, 833 N.Y.S. 2d 500, 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). I

tate law method of service and the state law provides a longer time in which to answer."). Thus, Defendant's response was due on May 27, 2007.' 'In Tyler, the court acknowledged that, because service was made in part by mail, the defendant may have the benefit of three extra days to respond per Fed. R

's place of abode to reside at that location. See, e.g., Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co... Morse, 779 F. Supp. 347, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); A/Fayed1 Barak, 833 N.Y.S. 2d 500, 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). In this case, the affidavit of service states that "John Smith" was a person of suitable age and dis

state law method of service and the state law provides a longer time in which to answer."). Thus, Defendant's response was due on May 27, 2007.2 'In Tyler, the court acknowledged that, because service was made in part by mail, the defendant may have the benefit of three extra days to respond per Fed. R