Viera v. Gallo
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-08731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Viera v. Gallo, Judge Koeltl added Petro Home Services and ordered U.S. Marshals service for the defendants in Roberto Viera’s Title VII case.
Roberto Viera, Petro Home Services, and the six individual defendants named in the service instructions are affected by the service order; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service must carry it out.
What happened
In Viera v. Gallo, Roberto Viera, representing himself, claims that the defendants discriminated against him because of race, color, and national origin and retaliated after an earlier employment-discrimination case. The court also said the complaint could be read to assert claims under additional federal, state, and city laws.
The court treated the complaint as naming Viera’s employer, Petro Home Services, as a defendant and directed the Clerk of Court to add it to the case. Because Viera was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance, the court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the legal papers on Petro Home Services and six individual defendants.
Judge Koeltl did not decide whether Viera’s discrimination or retaliation claims are valid. The order requires service within 90 days after summonses are issued and instructs Viera to request more time if necessary and to notify the court of any address change.
The detailed version
- Viera v. Gallo · No. 1:24-cv-08731
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 21, 2024
Background
Roberto Viera, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, as well as retaliation for an earlier employment-discrimination action. The court stated that the complaint could also be liberally construed as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The court had granted Viera permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion states that Viera filed an administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Petro Home Services, his employer.
Adding Petro Home Services as a Defendant
The court construed the complaint as asserting claims against Petro Home Services because of Viera’s status as a self-represented litigant and his clear intention to sue that entity. Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption to add Petro Home Services as a defendant. The court stated that this amendment did not prevent Petro Home Services from raising any defenses.
Service of the Complaint
Because Viera was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to assist with service. The Clerk was directed to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Petro Home Services and for Anthony Gallo, Michael Zvonik, David Nathaniel, Jerry McDonald, Megan Medura, and Margarita Maneiro. The Clerk was also directed to issue summonses and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the defendants.
The court stated that if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Viera should request an extension of time. It also directed Viera to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the case could be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to add Petro Home Services as a defendant, issue summonses and complete the service forms for all seven defendants, deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service, and mail Viera an information package. The order is procedural and does not decide the merits of Viera’s discrimination or retaliation claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.