Velez v. One Plus Technology Co.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02432
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velez v. One Plus Technology, Judge Ricardo ordered updated service information after service failed, warning dismissal could be recommended.
Adrian A. Velez, who must provide an updated address for serving One Plus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; the case could be subject to a dismissal recommendation if he does not do so.
What happened
In Adrian A. Velez v. One Plus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., the court had directed the U.S. Marshals Service to help serve the defendant at an address provided by Velez. The summons was issued on October 6, 2025, starting a 90-day period for service.
The Marshals Service reported that service was not completed because OnePlus USA Corp. had left the provided address about two years earlier. The court directed Velez to provide a new service address by December 16, 2025, after which it would direct issuance of an amended summons.
Judge Ricardo stated that Velez should request more time if service was not completed within 90 days. He warned that failure to provide an updated address could lead him to recommend that Judge Abrams dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. The order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Velez v. One Plus Technology Co. · No. 1:25-cv-02432
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
The court previously directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and send the required form to the U.S. Marshals Service to assist with service. The service address supplied by Adrian A. Velez was:
OnePlus USA Corp. Riverside Commons 5000 Riverside Drive Irving, Texas 750389
The summons was issued on October 6, 2025. The court therefore identified January 4, 2026, as the end of the 90-day period for serving the summons and complaint.
Failed Service Attempt
On November 26, 2025, the Marshals Service filed a process receipt stating that service had not been completed. It reported that OnePlus USA Corp. had vacated the address provided by Velez approximately two years earlier.
Order
The court directed Velez to provide a new address for service by December 16, 2025. After he provides an address, the court will direct the issuance of an amended summons. Judge Henry J. Ricardo also stated that, if service is not completed within 90 days after the summons was issued, Velez should request an extension of time for service. The order cited a prior decision stating that the plaintiff is responsible for requesting such an extension.
The court warned that if Velez did not provide an updated service address by December 16, 2025, Judge Ricardo might recommend that Judge Abrams dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The order itself did not dismiss the action or decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.