Martinez v. Verizon
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11129
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Martinez v. Verizon, Judge Caproni ordered the court and Marshals Service to serve Verizon after Martinez was allowed to proceed without paying fees.
Wanda E. Martinez, Verizon, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Martinez v. Verizon, Wanda E. Martinez, representing herself, sued Verizon under the Rehabilitation Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and New York City and New York State civil-rights laws. The court had already allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.
Because Martinez could not arrange service before the court issued a summons, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. The court also explained that she must ask for more time if service is not completed by then.
Judge Valerie Caproni directed the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete the service form, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on Verizon. Martinez must notify the court if her address changes, or the case may be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Verizon · No. 1:19-cv-11129
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
Wanda E. Martinez, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and New York City and New York State civil-rights laws against Verizon. In an earlier order dated December 12, 2019, the court granted her permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of Process
The order addressed service of process, which is the formal delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendant. Because Martinez was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Verizon. The court noted that she could not have served Verizon before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered a summons issued.
The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, Martinez must request an extension of time. The court also stated that the failure of the Marshals Service to complete service can support an extension when the plaintiff has provided enough information to identify the defendant.
Order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Martinez a copy of the order and an information package. It further directed the Clerk to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with Verizon’s service address, issue a summons, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. Martinez must notify the court in writing if her address changes; the court stated that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action. This order did not decide the merits of Martinez’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.