Aburomi v. Bank of Beirut and the Arab Countries
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-05646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Aburomi v. Bank of Beirut, Judge Cronan ordered service procedures for the American and Lebanese defendants.
The six plaintiffs proceeding without lawyers, Citibank and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, the three defendants located in Lebanon, the Clerk of Court, and the United States Marshals Service.
What happened
In Aburomi v. Bank of Beirut and the Arab Countries, six plaintiffs without lawyers brought federal antitrust claims and state-law claims, including conversion, against five defendants. The opinion does not decide whether those claims are valid.
The plaintiffs had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court explained that the United States Marshals Service would serve Citibank and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, but the plaintiffs would have to arrange service on the three defendants located in Lebanon.
Judge Cronan directed the Clerk of Court to issue and process the summonses for the American defendants and to send summonses for the Lebanese defendants directly to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs may ask the Lebanese defendants to waive service or may use methods allowed by the federal service rules.
The detailed version
- Aburomi v. Bank of Beirut and the Arab Countries · No. 1:24-cv-05646
- John Cronan
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
Omar Aburomi and five other plaintiffs, who are appearing without lawyers, assert claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, as well as state-law claims including conversion. The operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint. The defendants are the Bank of Beirut and the Arab Countries, Assaf Holding Company SAL, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Citibank, N.A., and Fransabank SAL.
The court had previously granted the plaintiffs permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. This order addresses how the defendants must be served with the summonses and the Second Amended Complaint. It does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ federal or state-law claims.
Service on the American Defendants
The court treated Citibank and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank as the American defendants. Because the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, federal law requires the court to assist with service, including by directing the United States Marshals Service to serve process when appropriate.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Citibank and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, complete a United States Marshals Service process receipt and return form for each, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court extended the time for serving these defendants until ninety days after their summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, the plaintiffs should request an extension.
Service on the Lebanese Defendants
The court treated the Bank of Beirut and the Arab Countries, Assaf Holding Company SAL, and Fransabank SAL as the Lebanese defendants. It explained that the Marshals Service does not serve defendants located outside the United States. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for those defendants and send the summonses directly to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs may ask the Lebanese defendants to waive service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). If they do not obtain waivers, the plaintiffs may serve the Lebanese defendants by a method permitted under Rule 4(f)(2) or Rule 4(f)(3). The court stated that the ninety-day service period in Rule 4(m) does not apply to service on defendants outside the United States under these rules.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan directed the Clerk of Court to mail information packages to each plaintiff, directed service on Citibank and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank through the United States Marshals Service, and directed the Clerk to send the Lebanese defendants’ summonses directly to the plaintiffs. The order is about service of process and does not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.