Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon
Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, Kelly Frazier, Scott Chesin, Forrest Solutions and Gary Stanek
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05088
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, Judge Abrams ordered U.S. Marshals service for Santana’s defendants after he was allowed to proceed without paying fees.
Fernando Justino Santana and the defendants named in the action: Shook Hardy & Bacon, Kelly Frazier, Scott Chesin, Forrest Solutions, and Gary Stanek.
What happened
In Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, the court addressed how Santana would serve the defendants after allowing him to proceed without paying court fees. The court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service.
The clerk was ordered to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service on all five defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Santana should ask for more time.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed Santana to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he does not. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon · No. 1:25-cv-05088
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 10, 2025
Order
The court addressed service of the lawsuit because Fernando Justino Santana had been granted permission to proceed without paying court fees. In such cases, the court explained, the plaintiff may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Service Instructions
The clerk of court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Shook Hardy & Bacon, Kelly Frazier, Scott Chesin, Forrest Solutions, and Gary Stanek. The clerk was also instructed to issue summonses and give the Marshals Service the paperwork needed to serve the defendants.
Service Deadline and Address Requirement
Although the usual rule generally requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court stated that Santana could not have served the defendants until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued. The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses issue. If the amended complaint is not served within that period, Santana should request an extension of time.
Santana must notify the court in writing if his address changes. The court stated that it may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Disposition
This was an order arranging service of process. It did not decide the merits of Santana’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.