Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 30, 2025

Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment LLC

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:25-cv-03203
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Liliana Barrios-Contreras v. Big Fish Entertainment, Judge Netburn ordered service steps for several defendants and docket changes.

Who this affects

The order directly affects Liliana Barrios-Contreras, Roku Inc., YouTube TV, Paramount Global, Big Fish Entertainment LLC, Chris Engelmann, Lindsey Bannister, and Rasheed J. Daniels, as well as the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

In Liliana Barrios-Contreras v. Big Fish Entertainment LLC et al., the court addressed how the plaintiff could serve defendants who had not yet been served and corrected a defendant’s name on the docket. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims.

Because Liliana Barrios-Contreras had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve Roku Inc. and YouTube TV through their registered agent. The court also directed Big Fish Entertainment LLC to help locate three individual defendants and directed the Clerk to replace ViacomCBS with Paramount Global, formerly known as ViacomCBS Inc.

Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Clerk to issue the summonses and service paperwork, mail the plaintiff a form for electronic service, and update the docket. Big Fish must report by November 14, 2025, whether the three individuals will appear voluntarily or provide their last known addresses.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03203
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Oct. 30, 2025

Nature of the order

The court held a telephone conference about serving defendants who had not yet been served and the overall posture of the case. This was a case-management and service order; the opinion did not decide the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

Service on Roku Inc. and YouTube TV

The court stated that Roku Inc. and YouTube TV might not yet have been served. Because Plaintiff had been permitted to proceed without paying filing fees, the court said she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service.

The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process and Return form, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the necessary paperwork to serve both defendants through Corporation Service Company, their identified national registered agent. The opinion listed the following service information:

- Roku Inc., through Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street, Albany, New York 12207. - Google LLC doing business as YouTube, for service on YouTube TV, through Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street, Albany, New York 12207.

The order states that if the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service.

Change involving ViacomCBS and Paramount Global

The court stated that corporate Defendant ViacomCBS is now Defendant Paramount Global and that ViacomCBS no longer exists. With Plaintiff’s express consent, the Clerk was directed to terminate ViacomCBS from the action and update the docket to identify Paramount Global as “Paramount Global f/k/a ViacomCBS Inc.”

Unserved individual defendants

The opinion identifies three individual defendants who had not yet been served: Chris Engelmann, Lindsey Bannister, and Rasheed J. Daniels. The parties informed the court that these individuals might have been former employees of Big Fish Entertainment LLC.

Big Fish was directed to do one of two things: contact the three individuals and tell the court whether they intend to appear voluntarily and waive service, or provide the individuals’ last known business or residential addresses so service can be attempted. Big Fish was ordered to notify the court by November 14, 2025.

Electronic service

The court stated that it would send Plaintiff a Consent to Electronic Service form, allowing her to receive electronic service of notices and documents in the case. The Clerk was directed to mail the form.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Roku Inc. and YouTube TV and direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them; directed Big Fish to take the specified steps concerning Chris Engelmann, Lindsey Bannister, and Rasheed J. Daniels; directed the Clerk to terminate ViacomCBS and update the docket to Paramount Global f/k/a ViacomCBS Inc.; and directed the Clerk to mail Plaintiff the electronic-service form.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.