Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment
- Ricardo
- 1:25-cv-03203
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment, Judge Ricardo ordered U.S. Marshals to serve certain defendants after allowing Barrios to proceed without paying fees.
Liliana Barrios and the eight defendants identified for service: Chris Engelmann, Lindsey Bannister, VH1, ViacomCBS, Paramount+, BET+, Pluto TV, and Roku TV. The Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were also directed to take service-related actions.
What happened
Liliana Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment, et al. is a lawsuit in which Barrios, representing herself, asserts federal and state-law claims against entertainment companies and individuals. The opinion says she was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court treated Barrios’s notice about service addresses as a request for an order of service. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare service forms for eight defendants, and to give the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so the Marshals could serve the summonses and amended complaint.
Judge Henry J. Ricardo issued the order on September 11, 2025. The order concerns service of the lawsuit and does not decide whether Barrios’s claims are legally valid.
The detailed version
- Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment · No. 1:25-cv-03203
- Ricardo
- Sept. 11, 2025
Background
Liliana Barrios brings the case without a lawyer. According to the amended complaint, she asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Lanham Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and state law against Big Fish Entertainment, LLC; Dan Cesareo; Rocky Bronzino IJ; Lindsey Bannister; Chris Engelmann; VH1 Network; Paramount Global, formerly ViacomCBS Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC, doing business as Prime Video; Google LLC, doing business as YouTube and YouTube TV; Apple Inc., doing business as Apple TV; Doe defendants; and MGM Television Entertainment, Inc.
The court had previously granted Barrios permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Barrios later filed a notice containing service addresses for additional defendants and asked the court to treat that filing as a motion requesting an order of service.
Court’s Action
The court construed the notice as a motion for an order of service and directed service using the addresses provided for Chris Engelmann, Lindsey Bannister, VH1, ViacomCBS, Paramount+, BET+, and Pluto TV. It also directed service on Roku TV using an address provided in an earlier filing.
The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue summonses and complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each of those eight defendants. The Clerk was also instructed to provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve each defendant with the summons and amended complaint. If service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, the opinion says Barrios should request an extension of time.
Disposition and Effect
The court directed the Clerk to take the listed service-related steps. This procedural order did not decide the merits of Barrios’s federal or state-law claims, and it did not dismiss or resolve the case. The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.