# CRAMER

> District Court, D. New Jersey · April 21, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11359169

## Case

- **Full name:** Rochelle Cramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WithumSmith+Brown, PC, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** April 21, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11359169

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROCHELLE CRAMER, individually| Civ. Action No, 25-17032 (RIS) (RLS)
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Vv.
WITHUMSMITH+BROWN, PC, et al.,
Defendants.

SINGH, United States Magistrate Judge.
PRESENTLY before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiff Rochelle Cramer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for leave to setve Defendants

Daniel Wildermuth and Carol Wildermuth (collectively, the “Wildermuths”) by
alternative means and for an extension of time to serve the Wildermuths (the
“Motion”). (Doc. No, 32). No party has filed a timely opposition to the Motion. The

Court has fully considered the Motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below,
and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Motion,

I, RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this putative securities class action
against Defendants Wildermuth Fund (the “Fund”), Wildermuth Advisory, LLC,
Daniel Wildermuth, Gerard Scarpati, Carol Wildermuth, Anthony Lewis, R. Martel Dey,
Randall Fretz, Donald R. Henry, and WithumSmith+Brown, PC (collectively,
“Defendants”).! (See Doc. No. 1). The Fund “is a closed-end fund that reportedly
provided long-term capital appreciation to investors by investing in a diversified
portfolio of early-stage private equity positions[.]” (Doc. No. 1 at 4/2). Plaintiff claims
that Defendants mislead investors by purchasing interests in portfolio companies to

their own benefit and overstating the value of the Fund’s Net Asset Value (“NAV”),
According to Plaintiff, the Pund had information regarding the portfolio companies’
values but continued to materially misstate the Fund’s NAY.
The Fund announced on June 29, 2023 that it would be liquidated but disclaimed

any issues with its investments. However, subsequently, the Wildermuths resigned
from the Board of the Fund, and BW Asset Management Led. (“BWAM”) teplaced
Wildermuth Advisory, BWAM then reported that the Fund’s portfolio companies
underperformed from November 1, 2020 through June 29, 2023. More specifically,
BWAM teported that “between December 31, 2023 and October 31, 2024, the value

' The Court sets forth the background of this matter based upon the allegations set
forth in the Complaint. However, the Court recognizes that Plaintiffs will file a
Consolidated Amended Complaint by May 11, 2026. (See Doc. No. 47).

of the Fund’s investments in private equity plummeted by nearly $26 million.” (Doc,
No. 1 at § 115). Ultimately, as a result, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), Rule 10b-

5,17 CER. § 240,10b-5, and Sections 36(b) and 47(b) of the 1940 Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 80a-35(b) and -47(b). (See generally Doc. No. 1),
A. ATTEMPTS ‘TO SERVE THE WILDERMUTHS
Shortly after filing the Complaint, Plaintiff began to serve Defendants. Relevant

to the Wildermuths, Plaintiffs counsel learned of two potential residences: 97 Silver

Reef Lane, St. Augustine, Florida (the “St. Augustine Address”); and 1045 Leadenhall

Street, Alpharetta, Georgia (the “Alpharetta Address”). (Affidavit of Susan S. Hu (Tu
Aff”), Doc. No, 32-2, 45). Plaintiffs process server attempted to serve the

Wildermuths at the Alpharetta and St. Augustine Addresses on November 6 and 11,
2025, respectively, without success, (liu Aff. 4/§[ 6-7, ix. A-B). The process server

reported that the Wildeemuths did not reside at either address. (Hu Aff, Ex. A-B).
On November 12, 2025, the process server attempted, without success, service

at an addtess in Sarasota, Florda, which turned out to be a post box service store, (Au
Aff. 9.8, Ex. C). Also on that date, the process server attempted to serve the

Wildermuths at a former address of Wildermuth Advisory, LLC: 818 AlA Highway,
Suite 301, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. (Hu Aff. Ex. D). However, another

5 .

company was located at that address and an individual there reported being unfamiliar
with Mr, Wildermuth and Wildermuth Advisory. (Hu Aff [ 9, Ex. D).
Following an internet search, Plaintiffs counsel found a website identifying the

Wildermuths as being associated with Quartz Partners Investment Management
(“Quartz”), located in Saratoga Springs, New York. (Hu Aff 4 11). The process server

attempted service at Quartz on November 19, 2025, (Hu Aff 4/11, Ex. F). An

individual at Quartz reported having no knowledge of the Wildermuths. (Hu Aff, Fix.

FB), On December 2, 2025, Mr. Wildermuth published a post on the Quartz website.

(Hu Aff. 19), On December 9, 2025 and January 27, 2026, Plaintiff's investigators
called Quartz and the woman who answeted the phone reported “that the company
had a vendor-client télationship” with the Wildermuths but did not provide any contact

information, (Hu Aff. 712). Nevertheless, the Quartz website identifies email

addresses for the Wildermuths: = □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ and

ewildermuth@quartzpartnets.com. (du AFF YJ 20-21).
Plaintiffs counsel also located through an internet search a civil action pending
against Mr. Wildermuth in the Middle District of Florida, Brown u. Wildermuth, No. 22-

cv-1301 (M.D. FI) (the “Brown Litigation”). (Hu Aff. 4/13). On November 20, 2025,
Plaintiffs counsel spoke with Mr. Wildermuth’s counsel in that action, Alan Wolper,
(Hu Aff. 414). Mr. Wolper declined to accept service on behalf of Mr. Wildermuth,

reach out to Mr. Wildermuth regarding this matter, ot provide any contact information.

(Hu Aff. 4] 14).
On that same date, Plaintiffs investigator attempted to locate other addresses

for the Wildermuths based on a public records search. (Hu Aff. §] 15), The investigator
located an apartment in Washington, D.C. associated with Mr. Wildermuth. (Hu Aff.

16). Plaintiff's process server attempted sevice at that address on November 21 and

23, 2025. (Hu Aff, 16, Ex. G). The concierge and security guard at the Washington,
D.C. apartment building reported that the apartment was used as an office; no one

answered when the security guard called the apartment. (Hu Aff. ] 16, Ex. G).
Plaintiff uncovered another potential address for the Wildermuths at 1262 Ponte

Vedra Boulevard, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida and attempted service there on Januaty
17, 2026. (Hu Aff. 410, Ex. E). That attempt was also futile; the current residents

reported having purchased the home from the Wildermuths two years prior. (Hu Aff.

In addition to these efforts, Plaintiffs counsel reached out to an attorney who

might have had information relating the Wildermuths and obtained what is believed to

be current cell phone numbers for both Wildermuths. (Hu Aff. ff] 17-18). Plaintiff's

counsel also received another email address for Mrs. Wildermuth:
cwildenmuth@kalosfinancialcom, Aff. § 23).
B. ‘THE MOTION
Plaintiff has thus been unsuccessful in serving the Wildermuths. As such, she

moves fot leave to extend the time to serve them and to effectuate substituted service,

More specifically, Plaintiff secks to serve Mr. Wildermuth through the Quartz address

in Saratoga Springs, his Quartz email address, and his attorney in the Brows Litigation
and to serve Mrs, Wildermuth through the Quartz address, as well as her Quartz and

Kalos email addiesses. Plaintiff argues that she has been diligent in attempting to

exhaust all efforts to serve the Wildermuths through the means set forth in New Jersey
Court Rule 4:4-4(a). (See generally Doc. No. 32-1). She contends that the proposed
substituted forms of service are consistent with due process and good cause exists to

extend the time to serve the Wildermuths by 90 days.
li, LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 sets forth the mechanism for effectuating
service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Subsection (e) provides that a party may effectuate service

on an individual within the United States pursuant to applicable state law—which is

New Jersey here—or through a method specifically authorized by Rule 4(€)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). Rule 4(e)(2) permits service on

an individual by:

(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint
to the individual personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or
usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides there; of
(C) deliveting a copy of each to an agent authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service of process.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2),
New Jersey Court Rules provide that personal service is the “primary method of
obtaining in personam jurisdiction over a defendant in [the] State[.|” NJ. Ct R. 4:4-

4(a). If personal service cannot be made after “diligent effort and inquity[,]” the New

Jersey Court Rule 4:4-4 permits substituted or constructive service through certain

methods. N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4(b). However, ifa plaintiff cannot effectuate service through

any of the modes provided for under the New Jersey Court Rule, “any defendant may
be served as provided by court order, consistent with due process of law.” NJ. Ct. R.

4:4-4(b)(3). “Substituted service by email in New Jersey is generally permitted where

the movant has supplied the court with some facts indicating that the person to be

served would be likely to receive the summons and complaint at the given email

address.” Mizrahi». Anna, No, 23-2462, 2023 WL 7273725, at *8 (D.N.]. Nov. 3, 2023)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In order to proceed with substituted service, however, a plainuff must

demonsttate due diligence consistent with New Jersey Court Rule 4:4-5(b). See ad. at 9;
NJ. Ce. R. 4:4-5(b). Diligence is a fact-sensitive inquiry “‘measured by the qualitative
efforts of a specific plaintiff seeking to locate and serve a specific defendant.” H.D.

Smith, LLC v, Prime Rite Corp., No. 16-294, 2016 WL. 3600785, at *1 (D.N,J. July 5, 2016)
(quoting Modan v». Modan, 327 NJ, Super. 44, 48 (App. Div. 2000)). ‘To satisfy the

diligent inquiry requirement, courts generally require the plaintiff to follow up on

information it possesses or can reasonably obtain, pursue reasonable leads, and utilize

reasonably available methods to locate the defendant. See eg, Mizrahi, 2023 WL

7273725, at *9-10 (denying the motion for service by email, where the plaintiff failed to

follow up on leads from their initial investigation and was permitted to serve third-party
subpoenas on relevant entities to identify a valid address for the defendant). However,
diligence “does not necessarily mean a plaintiff take every conceivable action.”

Smith, 2016 WL 3606785, at *2.
In any event, the proposed alternate method of service must comport with duc

process, See NJ. Ct. R. 4:4-4()(3); FLD. Smith, 2016 WL 3606785, at *2. Due process
requires that there be “notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise
interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to

present their objections.” O’Conwor » Altus, 67 NJ. 106, 126 (NJ. 1975) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted), “[I}n the case of persons missing ot unknown,
employment of an indirect and even a probably futile means of notification is all that

the situation permits and creates no constitutional bar to a final decree foreclosing their

rights.” Mullane v, Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US, 306, 317 (1 950) (citations
omitted).

Farther, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a
plaintiff must effectuate setvice within 90 days of filing the complaint. Fed. R. Crv, P.
4(m). However, upon a showing of good cause for the faihire to timely serve, “the

court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id.
Il. DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated due diligence in attempting to serve the
Wildermuths. As detailed in the Affidavit of Susan S. Hu, Esq., Plaintiff exercised

significant efforts to locate and personally serve them, She sought the assistance of a

process server and investigators, performed skip traces for all potential addresses from

the Wildetmuths, conducted searches of public records and the internet, and attempted
service at all potential addresses associated with the Wildermuths, In addition, Plainuff

sought out the assistance of an attorney representing Mr. Wildermuth and another

attorney who may have had information relating to Mrs. Wildermuth. She also

contacted Quartz to ascertain the nature of its affiliation with the Wildermuths. All of

these efforts, unfortunately, were to no avail.
Next, the Court must evaluate whether Plaintiffs proposed substitute service

through the Quartz location, email addresses and, in the case of Mr. Wildermuth,
service on his attorney representing him in the Browz Litigation, This Court has

permitted service through email if there are “some facts indicating that the person to

be served would be likely to receive the summons and complaint at the given email

address.” Menon v. Corbett, No. 21-8384, 2022 WL 3998393, at *3 (D.N,J, Sept. 1, 2022)

(quoting U.S. See and Excch. Comm'n v, Vinizle Media Corp, No, 21-1226, 2021 WL

1731947, at *3 (D.N.J. May 3, 2021)) Gnternal quotation marks omitted),
Here, Plaintiffs counse! avers that the Wildermuths remain associated with
Quartz and, according to Plaintiffs partner, Mr. Wildermuth had used the Quartz email

as recently as February 2025 and Ms. Wildermuth had used the Kalos email as recently

as June 2025. Indeed, Plaintiff also points out that the Quartz website currently
identifies Mr, Wildermuth as being its Vice President, Portfolio Manager and Mrs.

Wildermuth as being a member of its Advisory Council. Plainuff therefore has

sufficiently shown that the Wildetmuths would likely receive the Summons and

Complaint at the email addresses provided, In addition, service of the Sammons and
Complaint to the Wildermuths at the Quartz address is likely to provide adequate due

process and notice in light of their activity and open affiliation with Quattz,
Further, service of the Summons and Complaint on Mr. Wolper, Mt.

Wildermuth’s attorney in the Browy Litigation, is reasonably calculated to provide
adequate notice to Mr. Wildermuth of this action and to permit him an opportunity to

present his position. Mr. Wolper has confirmed that he does represent Mr, Wildermuth

in connection with other litigation and, as such, should have contact with him.

Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the proposed methods of substitute service here

will comport with due process.
Plaintiff also seeks to extend the time to effectuate service on the Wildermuths,

A court will extend that time upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). ‘To

10

determine if good cause exists: “The district court first determines whether good cause
exists fora plaintiffs failure to effect timely service. If good cause exists, the extension

must be granted. If good cause does not exist, the district court must consider whether

to grant a discretionary extension of time.” Boley ». Kaymark, 123 F.3d 756, 758 3d Cit.

1997), The Court assesses good cause based on the plaintifPs reasons for failing to
comply with the ume limit. Jd
Good cause exists here to extend Plaintiff's deadline to serve the Wildermuths.
As discussed above, Plaintiff has demonstrated due diligence in attempting to setve

them. ‘lhe failure to serve the Wildermuths has been through no fault of or lack of

effort by Plaintiff. ‘Vherefore, the Court grants PlaintifPs request to extend the time to

setve the Wildermuths by 90 days from the date of this Memorandum Opinion and

Order,
IV. CONCLUSION
Therefore, having fully considered PlaintifPs unopposed Motion, and for the

reasons set forth herein and for other good cause shown,
IT IS on this 21st day of April 2026 hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Alternative Service and to Extend Time

to Effectuate Service (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED, and it is further
ORDERED that the time to effectuate service on Defendants Daniel

Wildermuth and Carol Wildermuth is extended through July 20, 2026; and it is further

11

ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve Defendant David Wildermuth through the

folowing alternative methods:
1. Delivering the Summons and Complaint (and, if necessary, the Consolidated
Amended Complaint) to Defendant Daniel Wildermuth’s attorney, Alan M.
Wolper, by: (a) regular mail and certified mail at Thompson Mine LLP, 20
North Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, Mlinois 60602; and (b) email at
Alan. Wolper@Vhompsontine.com, and
2. Delivering the Summons and Complaint (and, if necessary, the Consolidated
Amended Complaint) to Defendant Daniel Wildermuth by: (a) regular mail

and certified mail at Quartz Partners Investment Management, 85 Railroad
Place, Suite 101A, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866, and (b) email at
DWildermuth@OuartzPartners.com; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve Defendant Carol Wildermuth by delivering
the Summons and Complaint (and, if necessary, the Consolidated Amended Complaint)
to Defendant Carol Wildermuth by: (a) regular mail and certified mail at Quartz Partners

Investment Management, 85 Railroad Place, Suite LOLA, Saratoga Springs, New York

12866; and (b) email at CWildermuth@QuartzPartnets.com and

CWildermuth@kalosfinancial.com; and it is farther
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide a copy of this Order with the setvice set

forth above; and it is further

12

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file proof of service on the docket within ten

(10) days of effecting service as authorized herein; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE the Motion

pending at Docket Entry Numbee 32; and it is further

SO ORDERED.

eal AH L. SINGH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11359169. Public record. Not legal advice.