Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 4, 2024

Hinojosa v. Robert E. Judge PC

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-05972
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hinojosa v. Robert E. Judge PC, Judge Engelmayer ordered service of Yajaira Hinojosa’s debt-collection lawsuit through the Marshals.

Who this affects

Yajaira Hinojosa, who must monitor service and keep the court informed of address changes; Robert E. Judge PC, which is to be served through the U.S. Marshals Service; and the Clerk and Marshals Service, which must carry out the court’s service instructions.

What happened

Hinojosa v. Robert E. Judge PC is a lawsuit by Yajaira Hinojosa, who is representing herself and alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She seeks damages and costs from Robert E. Judge PC, a law firm. The court had already allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Because Hinojosa was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court said she could use help from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court instructed the Clerk to issue a summons, complete the required service form with the defendant’s address, and send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

Judge Engelmayer ordered service on Robert E. Judge PC and directed the Clerk to mail Hinojosa an information package. The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, unless Hinojosa requests more time, and that she must notify the court if her address changes.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hinojosa v. Robert E. Judge PC · No. 1:24-cv-05972
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Sept. 4, 2024

Background

Yajaira Hinojosa brings this action without a lawyer against Robert E. Judge PC, identified in the order as a law firm. She asserts claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and seeks damages and costs. On August 12, 2024, the court granted her permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The order also notes that Hinojosa may have disclosed the full name of a minor child in her application. The Clerk was directed to restrict electronic access to that submission to court participants.

Service instructions

Because Hinojosa was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that she could rely on assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Robert E. Judge PC. The court directed the Clerk to:

- issue a summons for Robert E. Judge PC; - complete a U.S. Marshals Service Receipt and Return form with the defendant’s service address; and - provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the defendant.

The service address listed in the order is Robert E. Judge PC, 365 Bridge Street, Suite 3PRO, Brooklyn, New York 11201.

Ruling and practical requirements

The court ordered service on the defendant. It explained that the usual 90-day service period would run from the date the summons was issued in this case, because Hinojosa could not serve the defendant before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered issuance of the summons. If service does not occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, Hinojosa should request an extension of time. She must also notify the court in writing if her address changes, and the court stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action.

This order addresses service and case administration. It does not decide whether Hinojosa will prevail on her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.