Lewis v. Laz Parking Ltd., LLC
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-02341
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lewis v. Laz Parking, Judge Garnett set response deadlines, vacated a service-address directive, opened the docket publicly, and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Andre Lewis, Laz Parking Ltd., LLC, Defendant Irizarry, and members of the public seeking access to the case docket. Laz Parking and Irizarry were given response deadlines of July 29, 2025; Lewis was denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
Lewis v. Laz Parking Ltd., LLC concerns deadlines for responding to Andre Lewis’s complaint and access to the case docket. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
The court said Laz Parking’s response is due July 29, 2025, assuming it mailed its service waiver on May 30. It set the same deadline for Defendant Irizarry, vacated its earlier directive requiring Laz Parking to provide Irizarry’s service address, and removed restrictions that had limited access to several docket entries.
Judge Garnett also directed the case to proceed publicly unless new circumstances justify sealing or redacting documents. The court denied fee-waiver status for an appeal, finding that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lewis v. Laz Parking Ltd., LLC · No. 1:25-cv-02341
- Garnett
- June 13, 2025
Background
Andre Lewis filed the complaint on March 20, 2025, without a lawyer. The court granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Laz Parking filed a waiver of service, executed May 30, 2025. Lewis then asked the court to clarify when Laz Parking had to respond, arguing that the deadline was June 30, 2025.
Response deadlines
The court relied on its standing order concerning service by mail. That order gives a defendant 60 days from the date the defendant or its agent mails or delivers a completed acknowledgment of service to respond, if the defendant timely returns the form. Assuming Laz Parking mailed the waiver on the day it was executed, May 30, 2025, the court held that Laz Parking may answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the complaint by July 29, 2025.
The court also vacated its earlier directive requiring Laz Parking to provide a service address for Defendant Irizarry within 30 days after service on Laz Parking. The court did so without prejudice to arguments concerning service. It ordered Irizarry to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the complaint no later than July 29, 2025.
Public access to the docket
The court noted that Lewis had not contacted it about alternative remedies offered in an earlier order denying his request to seal the entire case or complaint. For the reasons given in that earlier order, the court directed the Clerk of Court to remove the restriction limiting access to specified docket entries. The action will proceed publicly unless new circumstances require sealing or redacting particular documents.
Appeal status and disposition
The court directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Lewis. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. This was a procedural order addressing response deadlines, service-related instructions, docket access, and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.