Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment, LLC
- Clarke
- 1:25-cv-03203
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment, Judge Clarke ordered service steps for an IFP plaintiff but did not decide her claims.
Liliana Barrios, Big Fish Entertainment, LLC, Dan Cesareo, the other named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service are affected by the service directives. The order requires Barrios to provide service addresses for the other identified defendants.
What happened
Liliana Barrios sued Big Fish Entertainment, LLC, and other defendants, asserting federal claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Lanham Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, along with state-law claims. She is representing herself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Because Barrios did not provide service addresses for the defendants, the court used addresses already available for Big Fish and Dan Cesareo. The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare summonses and service forms for those two defendants and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. Barrios must provide addresses for the other identified defendants within 30 days.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the order on May 22, 2025. The order concerns serving the defendants and does not decide whether Barrios’s claims have merit.
The detailed version
- Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03203
- Clarke
- May 22, 2025
Background
Liliana Barrios filed this action against Big Fish Entertainment, LLC; Dan Cesareo; Rasheed Daniels; Rocky Bronzino II; Amazon, Inc.; Amazon Prime Video; Paramount Global; Viacom CBS; VH1; BET+; Paramount+; Apple TV; YouTube TV; Roku TV; Sling TV; Pluto TV; and Doe Defendants 1-10. The opinion states that Barrios asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Lanham Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as state-law claims.
The court had previously allowed Barrios to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because she was proceeding without prepaying fees, she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. Barrios had not provided service addresses for the defendants. The court stated that it had service addresses for Big Fish and Cesareo from a prior related proceeding.
Service Order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Big Fish and Cesareo, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each, and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the summonses and complaint. If those defendants are not served within 90 days after their summonses are issued, Barrios should request an extension of time for service.
The court also directed Barrios to provide service addresses for the other identified defendants within 30 days after the order. She must notify the court in writing if her address changes, and the opinion states that the court may dismiss the action if she fails to do so. The Clerk was also directed to mail Barrios an information package.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order directing these service-related steps. The order did not resolve the merits of Barrios’s federal or state-law claims and did not rule on whether any defendant is liable.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.