QED LLC v. Faber Daeufer & Itrato, P.C.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 22, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-02767·Unknown

Opinion

MEMO ENDORSWE OD LL MUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP U DS OD CC U MSD EN NY T NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10110 DOC #: ___________ DATE FILED: 9/22/2020 TELEPHONE (212) 382-3300 FACSIMILE (212) 382-0050 September 22, 2020 The Honorable Valerie Caproni United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 443 New York, New York 10007 QED, LLC, et al. v. Faber Daeufer & Itrato, P.C., et al., No. 20-cv-2767 (VEC)(SLC) Dear Judge Caproni: We write on behalf of Plaintiff QED, LLC (“QED”) in the above-referenced action regarding service of a subpoena on non-party Richard Keiser, the former CEO and co-director of the company at issue in this action, Level Solar, Inc. (“Level Solar”). As described below, we have been unable, despite diligent efforts, to effect service on Mr. Keiser. We respectfully request leave to serve the subpoena (updated to reflect new service and compliance dates) on Mr. Keiser by certified mail, with return receipt requested, and a copy by email to Mr. Keiser’s counsel of record in the Level Solar bankruptcy case pending in this District, In re Level Solar Inc., Case No. 17-13469. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, Mr. Keiser conspired with Defendants to secretly alter an investors’ rights agreement to frustrate the ability of QED and Level Solar to remove Mr. Keiser for cause, and, after the amendment, he proceeded to mismanage and loot Level Solar, ultimately resulting in its bankruptcy. See Am. Cmplt. ¶¶ 1-4. Mr. Keiser is thus a key player in the events giving rise to this case. Accordingly, we drafted a subpoena to Mr. Keiser seeking the production of certain documents and filed the notice required by Rule 45 on July 28, 2020. The subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On July 29, 2020, we asked Mr. John Jureller, who is counsel of record for Mr. Keiser in the Level Solar bankruptcy case, whether he would accept service on Mr. Keiser’s behalf. Mr. Jureller responded later that day that he would need to confer with Mr. Keiser and would revert back. However, Mr. Jureller has not responded since then, despite our multiple follow-up queries. On September 15, 2020, we made a similar inquiry regarding service on Mr. Joseph Matteo, who was counsel for Mr. Keiser in connection with the events in this suit at the time of Mr. Keiser’s 2017 separation from Level Solar, and who is another counsel of record for Mr. Keiser in the Level Solar bankruptcy case. We have received no response as of the date of this writing. Finally, we have repeatedly attempted to serve Mr. Keiser personally without success. Service was attempted on three occasions at his last known address in New York City on or about August 12, 2020, August 18, 2020, and August 19, 2020. We were informed by the process server that, according to the doorman at Mr. Keiser’s building, Mr. Keiser has not been living in that building since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in early March. ‘District courts in this Circuit have noted that the language of Rule 45 does not explicitly demand personal service of a subpoena; indeed such language neither requires in-hand service nor prohibits alternative means of service.” Tube City IMS, LLC v. Anza Capital Partners, LLC, 2014 WL 6361746, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2014) (punctuation omitted). The Second Circuit has not addressed this question, S.E.C. v. Pence, 322 F.R.D. 450, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), but even a summons may be served by alternative means where, as here, repeated attempts have been made at personal service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) (incorporating in this District, New York state alternative service provisions CPLR 308(4), (5)). The same is true for a Rule 45 subpoena. See, e.g., Pence, 322 F.R.D. at 453; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, 2009 WL 1313259, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009) (“[B]ecause alternative service by means of certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness, the ‘delivery’ requirement of Rule 45 will be met[.]”). In light of QED’s diligent but unsuccessful attempts to serve Mr. Keiser in person and through counsel described above, QED respectfully requests permission to serve a subpoena substantially identical to Exhibit A hereto but with updated service and compliance dates by certified mail, with return receipt requested, along with a copy by email to Messrs. Jureller and Matteo. Courts in this district have approved similar methods of alternative service, where personal service has proven infeasible. See Tube City, 2014 WL 6361746, at *2-3 (approving service by certified mail and affixing it to the witness’s door, in addition to serving counsel of record in another pending case); JPMorgan Chase, 2009 WL 1313259, at *3 (service by certified mail to witness’s residence and place of business, leaving copies at the residence and place of business, and emailing copy to witness’s employer); cf. Pence, 322 F.R.D. at 454 (approving service by certified mail and email, in addition to fax and telephone). GRANTED. Plaintiff may serve the . by certified mail, with return receipt Respectfully Submitted, and by email to Mr. Keiser's counsel. /s/ Lyndon M. Tretter ORDERED. Lyndon M. Tretter - 500 Fifth Avenue, 12" Floor (c / New York, New York 10110 9/22/2020 (212) 382-3300 Attorneys for Plaintiff QED, LLC VALERIE CAPRONI STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Enclosure cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)

EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QED, LLC, and Ronald J. Friedman, solely in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee of Debtor Level Solar, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-cv-2767 (VEC) Plaintiffs, v. FABER DAEUFER & ITRATO, P.C., KENNETH ITRATO, and DAVID NICOLAISEN, Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF A NON-PARTY SUBPOENA TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rules 26, 34(c), and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, by its counsel of record, is in the process of issuing or will issue a subpoena to the following non-party: Non-Party Location Date Richard G Keiser Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP 08/18/2020 500 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10110 (212)382-3300 The subpoena commands that this non-party produce documents at the time, date and place set forth above, or at such time, date, and place as may be mutually agreed upon by the non-party and Plaintiff's counsel. A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Issuance of a Non- Party Subpoena is being served is shown on the accompanying Declaration of Service. Dated: July 28, 2020 By: /s/ Jennifer A. Carnovale Lyndon M. Tretter Brad J. Axelrod Joshua M. Slocum Jennifer A. Carnovale WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10110 (212) 382-3300

Attorneys for Plaintiff QED, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QED, LLC, and Ronald J. Friedman, solely in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee of Debtor Level Solar, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-cv-2767 (VEC) Plaintiffs, v. DECLARATION OF SERVICE FABER DAEUFER & ITRATO, P.C., KENNETH ITRATO, and DAVID NICOLAISEN, Defendants. The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s Notice of Issuance of a Non-Party Subpoena was caused to be served on the date appearing below by electronic mail to: Lyndon M. Tretter Attorneys for QED, LLC Brad J. Axelrod Joshua M. Slocum Jennifer A. Carnovale WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 Fax: (212) 382-0050 Email: ltretter@wmd-law.com baxelrod@wmd-law.com jslocum@wmd-law.com jcarnovale@wmd-law.com Daniel L. Gold Attorneys for Faber Daeufer & Itrato P.C., Jacqueline M.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

QED LLC v. Faber Daeufer & Itrato, P.C., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

QED LLC v. Faber Daeufer & Itrato, P.C. (QED LLC v. Faber Daeufer & Itrato, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Pence
322 F.R.D. 450 (S.D. New York, 2017)