OPINION AND ORDER In this action brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201, Plaintiff United Specialty Insurance Company (“United”) seeks a judicial declaration that, among other things, it has no contractual duty to defend or indemnify Defendants Table Run Estates Inc. (“Table Run”), Condetta Brown Desgoutte, or Steve Desgoutte (collectively, the “Table Run Defendants”) in a state-court lawsuit that has been filed against them by Defendant Esperanza Perez. (See Dkt. No. 18 (“Compl.”)
1-6.) The Table Run Defendants have now moved to dismiss the claims against them for insufficient service of process. (Dkt. No. 36.) United has opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion that seeks an extension of time to serve Steve Desgoutte, as well as leave to serve him via counsel. (Dkt. No. 50.) For the reasons that follow, the Table Run Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied and United’s cross-motion is granted.I. BackgroundOn January 9, 2015, Defendant Perez filed a state-law tort action (the “Perez Action”) against the Table Run Defendants in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. (Dkt. No. 18-2.) After the Table Run Defendants failed to comply with certain discovery orders issued in that action, the state court struck their answer to Perez’s complaint and authorized Perez to file for an inquest. (Dkt. No. 18-7.) Ultimately, a judgment against the Table Run Defendants in the amount of $2,203,288.20 was filed in the Perez Action on April 13, 2018. (Dkt. No. 18-9.)Shortly thereafter, United — which had issued an insurance policy to Table Run (Dkt. No. 18-1) — received notice of the judgment in the Perez Action. (Dkt. No. 18-10.) According to United, it had not previously been aware of Perez’s claims or the Perez Action. (Compl. 28.) But, United maintains, once it first learned of the action on April 26, 2018, it began to defend the Table Run Defendants subject to a partial disclaimer of coverage. (Compl.