Joachin v. ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-07592
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nadine Joachin v. ArchCare, Magistrate Judge Aaron ordered summonses issued and required Joachin to identify or serve defendants.
Nadine Joachin and the defendants identified or proposed in her complaint, including ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center, Health Equity, Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc., United Staffing Solutions, Synchrony Bank, “Ride Safely,” “Neigbors,” “Chen,” and the references to NYPD and USPS.
What happened
In Nadine Joachin v. ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center, et al., the court issued an order to begin serving the defendants in Joachin’s lawsuit. The order says Joachin paid the required fees and was representing herself, but it did not decide whether her claims were valid.
The Clerk was asked to issue summonses for ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center, Health Equity, Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc., United Staffing Solutions, and Synchrony Bank. Joachin must serve those defendants within 90 days after the summonses are issued or request more time; otherwise, the court may dismiss the claims against them for failure to prosecute. She also must provide names and addresses for three other proposed defendants within 14 days if she wants summonses issued for them.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron also directed the Clerk to remove “NYPD” and “USPS” from the docket because they were not listed among the defendants in the complaint, and to correct two defendant names. The order noted that the New York City Police Department is not a suable agency and said Joachin would need an amended pleading to assert claims against the United States Postal Service.
The detailed version
- Joachin v. ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center · No. 1:25-cv-07592
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 17, 2025
Nature of the order
This is an order of service. It does not decide the merits of Joachin’s claims. The court stated that issuing the order was not a ruling on whether any claim was legally valid.
Defendants for service
The court said Joachin paid the relevant fees and was proceeding without a lawyer. It asked the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for five defendants identified in the complaint:
- ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center - Health Equity - Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc. - United Staffing Solutions - Synchrony Bank
The court directed Joachin to serve each listed defendant with the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If she neither serves the defendants nor requests an extension within that period, the court said it may dismiss the claims against them under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
The court also corrected two defendant names on the docket. It changed “Arch Care” to “ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center” and “BPAS” to “Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc.” The order explains that the complaint used those other names, but the court took judicial notice of the corrected names.
Unidentified proposed defendants
Joachin listed three additional proposed defendants as “Ride Safely,” “Neigbors,” and “Chen,” but for each one she stated that the address would be provided later. The court directed her to provide their proper names and addresses in an amended pleading within 14 days if she intended to assert claims against them. If she did not, the court said it would not issue summonses for those defendants.
NYPD and USPS references
The complaint’s caption had handwritten references to “NYPD” and “USPS,” but neither appeared among the eight defendants listed in the complaint. The court directed the Clerk to remove those references from the electronic docket. It noted that the New York City Police Department is a non-suable agency of the City of New York. If Joachin intended to assert claims against “USPS,” the court said she must file an amended pleading naming it as a defendant and stating the claims against it.
Disposition
The court ordered the service-related steps described above and did not resolve the underlying claims. The order was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.