Kevett Carroll v. Experian Services Corp.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-04978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kevett Carroll v. Experian, Judge Garnett ordered Marshals service for a pro se Fair Credit Reporting Act complaint after fee-free filing was approved.
Estelle Kevett Carroll and Experian Services Corp.; the order also directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service.
What happened
Estelle Kevett Carroll v. Experian Services Corp. is a Fair Credit Reporting Act case brought by Carroll without a lawyer. The court had already allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Because Carroll was proceeding without paying those fees, the court said the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service would handle service of the complaint. The Clerk was directed to issue a summons, complete the required service form, and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. Carroll was told to request more time if service was not completed within 90 days after the summons was issued and to notify the court of any address change.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett entered an order of service on July 8, 2025. The order addressed how the case would be served and did not decide whether Experian violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The detailed version
- Kevett Carroll v. Experian Services Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-04978
- Garnett
- July 8, 2025
Background
Estelle Kevett Carroll, appearing without a lawyer, sued Experian Services Corp. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In an earlier order dated June 26, 2025, the court allowed Carroll to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. That status permits a plaintiff to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant.
Service instructions
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Experian, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the defendant. The court extended the service period so that Carroll has 90 days after the summons is issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed.
The court stated that Carroll should request an extension of time if the complaint is not served within that period. It also required her to notify the court in writing if her address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so. The Clerk was directed to mail Carroll an information package.
Disposition and scope
Judge Margaret M. Garnett entered an order of service. The order directed steps for serving Experian; it did not resolve the merits of Carroll’s Fair Credit Reporting Act allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.