Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 20, 2025

Loor v. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:25-cv-04784
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureConsumer CreditPro Se
In one sentence

In Loor v. Equifax, Judge Seibel ordered the Clerk and Marshals Service to arrange service after Loor was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees.

Who this affects

Bridget Loor and Equifax Information Solutions, LLC; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take steps to serve Equifax.

What happened

In Loor v. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC, Bridget Loor, representing herself, alleged that Equifax violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other federal statutes. The court had already allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Because Loor was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court said the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service must assist with serving Equifax. The court directed the Clerk to issue a summons, complete the required service form, and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service.

Judge Cathy Seibel also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and told Loor to request more time if service is not completed by then. The order did not decide whether Loor’s claims were valid.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Loor v. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC · No. 7:25-cv-04784
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
June 20, 2025

Background

Bridget Loor, who is representing herself, brought this action against Equifax Information Solutions, LLC. She alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other federal statutes. In an earlier order dated June 18, 2025, the court allowed Loor to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Order

A person allowed to proceed without prepaying fees is entitled to assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving the defendant. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue a summons for Equifax, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service so it could serve Equifax.

The court explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin in the ordinary way because Loor could not arrange service until the court reviewed the complaint and issued the summons. It extended the time for service to 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, Loor should request an extension. The court also instructed Loor to notify it in writing if her address changes and said the case may be dismissed if she fails to do so.

Disposition and Significance

The court entered an order directing the Clerk and Marshals Service to arrange service and directing the Clerk to mail Loor an information package. The order addressed service of process and did not decide the merits of Loor’s Fair Credit Reporting Act or other federal claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.