Lawtone-Bowles v. City of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-05762
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Lawtone-Bowles v. New York City Department of Homeless Services, Judge Failla granted electronic filing, denied default judgment without prejudice, and ordered service.
Nicole Lawtone-Bowles and the three defendants—the New York City Department of Homeless Services, the New York City Department of Social Services, and the City of New York—were affected. The order arranged service, approved electronic filing for Lawtone-Bowles, and denied her default-judgment motion without prejudice.
What happened
In Lawtone-Bowles v. City of New York, Nicole Lawtone-Bowles, representing herself, sued the New York City Department of Homeless Services, the New York City Department of Social Services, and the City of New York. She alleged age and disability discrimination and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The court had allowed Lawtone-Bowles to proceed without paying filing fees, so the U.S. Marshals Service would serve the defendants. Because she tried to serve the complaint before summonses were issued, the defendants were not in default. The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Lawtone-Bowles’s request to file documents electronically and denied her motion for default judgment without prejudice. The order addressed service and motions, not whether her discrimination or leave-law claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Lawtone-Bowles v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-05762
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
Nicole Lawtone-Bowles, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services, the New York City Department of Social Services, and the City of New York. She alleged discrimination based on age and disability under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and New York State and City human-rights laws. She also alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. In such cases, the court and the U.S. Marshals Service handle service of process after the court reviews the complaint and issues summonses.
Service of Process
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Lawtone-Bowles should request more time. The court 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.
Motions
The court granted Lawtone-Bowles’s motion to participate in electronic case filing. After she registers, court and party documents will be served through electronic notice to her designated email address rather than by postal mail.
The court denied her motion for default judgment without prejudice. Although she submitted documents claiming that she had served the defendants, she had attempted service before summonses were issued. The court therefore determined that the defendants were not in default. The order did not decide the merits of her discrimination or Family and Medical Leave Act claims.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to participate in electronic case filing and denied without prejudice the motion for default judgment. It directed the Clerk to issue summonses for all three defendants and send the service materials to the U.S. Marshals Service.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.