Borjas v. New York City Department of Education
- Ona Wang
- 1:23-cv-10829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Borjas v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Wang ordered address assistance and granted both parties’ requests for more time.
The order affects Stacy A. Borjas, the New York City Department of Education, and the individual defendants Tiawanna Perez, Victor Garcia, and Jacqueline Rosado by addressing service of process and response deadlines.
What happened
In Borjas v. New York City Department of Education, Stacy A. Borjas, representing herself, sued the New York City Department of Education and three individual defendants. The order concerned serving those defendants, not whether Borjas’s claims were legally valid.
The U.S. Marshals Service served the Department of Education but could not serve Tiawanna Perez or Victor Garcia because they no longer worked at the listed addresses. The court found that the complaint gave the Department enough information to identify Perez, Garcia, and Jacqueline Rosado.
Judge Ona Wang ordered the Department to find service addresses for the three individual defendants and provide them to Borjas and the court within 60 days. Judge Wang also granted the defendants’ request to extend their response deadline to September 23, 2024, and granted Borjas’s request for a 90-day extension to serve the defendants, effective retroactively from June 3 through September 1, 2024.
The detailed version
- Borjas v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-10829
- Ona Wang
- June 7, 2024
Background
Stacy A. Borjas filed this action representing herself against her former employer, the New York City Department of Education (DOE), and Tiawanna Perez, Victor Garcia, and Jacqueline Rosado. The U.S. Marshals Service served the DOE on May 17, 2024, but could not serve Perez or Garcia because the addresses were incorrect and they no longer worked at those locations. The court reviewed filings at ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18.
Address Assistance for Service
Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a person representing herself in federal court is entitled to the district court’s help identifying a defendant when the complaint provides enough information. The court found that Borjas’s complaint supplied sufficient information for the DOE to identify Perez, Garcia, and Rosado. The court therefore ordered the DOE to determine addresses where those three individual defendants could be served and provide the information to Borjas and the court within 60 days of the order.
After receiving the information, the court stated that it would issue an order within 30 days directing the Clerk of Court to complete the service forms with the defendants’ addresses and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order also noted that the DOE could seek to waive service for the individual defendants.
Extensions and Disposition
The defendants’ motion for an extension of time—from June 7, 2024, to September 23, 2024—to respond to the amended complaint was GRANTED. Borjas’s motion for a 90-day extension of time to serve the defendants was also GRANTED nunc pro tunc—meaning effective retroactively—from June 3, 2024, to September 1, 2024. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Borjas, and ECF No. 18 was closed.
Judge Ona T. Wang did not decide the merits of Borjas’s claims in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.