Persaud v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-04600
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Persaud v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Judge Rochon dropped three other defendants and ordered service on the MTA.
Steven Persaud; the MTA, which remains the sole defendant; NYCT, MTA Headquarters, and MaBSTOA, which the court directed the Clerk to drop; and the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service, which were directed to arrange service.
What happened
Steven Persaud, representing himself, sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and three related entities over alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and city law. He sought damages, backpay, and an injunction.
The court found that naming New York City Transit, MTA Headquarters, and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority appeared duplicative because they were subdivisions of the MTA. It therefore removed those three defendants and kept the MTA as the only defendant.
Judge Rochon directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and provide the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the MTA. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Persaud v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · No. 1:25-cv-04600
- Rochon
- Aug. 5, 2025
Background
Steven Persaud, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims for employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. He sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New York City Transit (NYCT), MTA Headquarters (HQ), and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MaBSTOA). The opinion describes the MTA as Persaud’s former employer and NYCT and MaBSTOA as subdivisions of the MTA. Persaud requested damages, backpay, and injunctive relief.
The court had previously allowed Persaud to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion does not decide whether his discrimination or retaliation claims are legally valid.
Party Disposition Under Rule 21
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court to add or remove a party when doing so serves efficiency and justice. The court concluded that naming NYCT, MTA Headquarters, and MaBSTOA appeared duplicative of naming the MTA because those entities were MTA subdivisions. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to drop every defendant except the MTA. The order does not say that any claim was dismissed.
Service of Process
Because Persaud was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for the MTA, complete a USM-285 service form, and give the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Marshals Service is to serve the summons and complaint on the MTA. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, Persaud should request more time. The court also directed Persaud to notify the court in writing of any address change and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Conclusion
The order removes NYCT, MTA Headquarters, and MaBSTOA under Rule 21 and directs service on the MTA. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Judge
Jennifer L. Rochon, United States District Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.