cess server also mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to Defendant on May 5, 2008, via first class mail. (DE 4)." It is my understanding that the Affidavit of Service (DE 4) crosses out language regarding mail to the Defendant, and that the process server in this case did not mail a copy of the Summons and Compla

nst Defendant, and states as follows: 1. On May 7, 2008, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was served with a Summons and Complaint in this case. A copy of the Affidavit of Service is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1), Defendant was required to answer or otherwise serve a

lows: 1. This action was filed on February 6, 2008. On May 7, 2008, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was served with the Summons and Complaint. A copy of the Affidavit of Service was filed with the Court. (D.E. 4). 2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1), Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was required to answer or otherwise serve a r

N.Y.S.C., Appellate Division, June 26, 2008). Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs Motion is defective because the Plaintiff did not timely file the Affidavit of Service. However, a delay in filing proof of service under CPLR 308 is merely a procedural irregularity, not jurisdictional, and may be corrected nunc pro

nst Defendant, and states as follows: 1. On May 7, 2008. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was served with a Summons and Complaint in this case. A copy of the Affidavit of Service is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1), Defendant was required to answer or otherwise serve a