Carroll v. Equifax Information Services
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-04979
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Estelle Kevett Carroll v. Equifax, Judge Woods ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Equifax after Carroll was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees.
Estelle Kevett Carroll and Equifax Information Services, LLC; the order directs court personnel and the U.S. Marshals Service to arrange service on Equifax.
What happened
Estelle Kevett Carroll v. Equifax Information Services, LLC concerns Carroll’s Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit. Carroll is representing herself and had already been allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Because Carroll was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, complete the required service form, and provide the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service so it could serve Equifax. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the Clerk to arrange service and mail Carroll an information package. The order did not decide the merits of Carroll’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims.
The detailed version
- Carroll v. Equifax Information Services · No. 1:25-cv-04979
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 19, 2025
Background
Estelle Kevett Carroll, who is representing herself, brought this action against Equifax Information Services, LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer credit reporting. In an earlier order, the court allowed Carroll to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of the lawsuit
A person allowed to proceed without prepaying fees may rely on court assistance and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court therefore instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Equifax, issue a summons, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.
The court explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin when Carroll filed the complaint because service could not occur until the court reviewed the complaint and issued the summons. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed during that period, Carroll should ask for more time. The court also directed Carroll to notify it in writing of any address change and warned that the action could be dismissed if she fails to do so.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the Clerk to issue the summons, complete the service form, and deliver the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Carroll an information package. This order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide whether Carroll’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims are valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.