Charles v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-00702
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Charles v. T-Mobile, Judge Failla allowed more service attempts on Assurance Wireless and kept T-Mobile’s response obligation stayed.
Nicolas A.N. Charles, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Assurance Wireless, and the United States Marshals Service.
What happened
In Charles v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., the court addressed efforts to notify Assurance Wireless about the lawsuit. Nicolas A.N. Charles and counsel for T-Mobile appeared by telephone at an initial pretrial conference.
The United States Marshals Service had mailed the summons and complaint to an Assurance Wireless post office box in Killeen, Texas. The court allowed the Marshals Service to try again by mailing the papers to post office boxes in Killeen, Texas; Charleston, Illinois; and Reston, Virginia.
The court kept T-Mobile’s obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint stayed until a further order. Judge Katherine Polk Failla also asked T-Mobile’s counsel to provide any additional service address for Assurance Wireless that counsel knew about.
The detailed version
- Charles v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00702
- Katherine Failla
- June 11, 2025
Background
Nicolas A.N. Charles sued T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Assurance Wireless. At an initial pretrial conference on June 11, 2025, Charles and counsel for T-Mobile appeared by telephone. The court discussed the status of efforts to serve Assurance Wireless with the summons and complaint.
Service efforts
The United States Marshals Service reported that it had attempted service on Assurance Wireless on or about April 11, 2025, by mailing the summons and complaint to a post office box in Killeen, Texas. After further discussions, the Marshals Service agreed to make another attempt by mailing the papers to post office boxes in Killeen, Texas; Charleston, Illinois; and Reston, Virginia. The court stated that these addresses covered all Assurance Wireless addresses that the court and the Marshals Service had been able to identify.
Ruling and current status
The court allowed the Marshals Service time to complete the additional mailings. It stated that the efforts by Charles and the Marshals Service were, for now, reasonably calculated to give Assurance Wireless notice of the lawsuit and an opportunity to respond. T-Mobile’s obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint remains stayed pending further order. The court also asked T-Mobile’s counsel to provide any additional service address for Assurance Wireless known to counsel. Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Charles at his address of record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.