Crichlow v. Verituity Inc.
- Rearden
- 1:25-cv-06591
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Crichlow v. Verituity Inc., Judge Rearden ordered service and granted electronic filing permission without deciding the claims.
Mark A. Crichlow, Verituity Inc., Forgepoint Capital, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Mark A. Crichlow, representing himself, sued Verituity Inc. and others under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other federal and state laws. The court treated his amended complaint as the operative complaint, and Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Because Crichlow was allowed to proceed without paying fees upfront, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve Verituity Inc. and Forgepoint Capital. The court said service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Crichlow requests more time.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden also granted Crichlow permission to file documents electronically. The order addressed service and filing procedures; it did not decide the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- Crichlow v. Verituity Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-06591
- Rearden
- Aug. 27, 2025
Background
Mark A. Crichlow, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against Verituity Inc., Forgepoint Capital, and other defendants under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other federal and state laws. He filed the original complaint on August 5, 2025, and filed an amended complaint on August 8, 2025. The court stated that the amended complaint is the operative pleading.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had granted Crichlow permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. That status allows him to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Service of process
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service process form for Verituity Inc. and Forgepoint Capital, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve them. The court extended the service deadline so that the 90-day period begins after the summonses are issued. If the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses issue, Crichlow should request an extension of time.
The court also instructed Crichlow to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Electronic filing and disposition
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted Crichlow’s motion to participate in electronic filing. After he registers, court and party documents will be served by electronic notice to his designated email address rather than by postal mail.
The court instructed the Clerk to issue the summonses, complete the service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. It also directed the Clerk to mail Crichlow an information package. The order did not reach the merits of Crichlow’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.