Zabolotsky v. Equifax
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-11832
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Zabolotsky v. Equifax, Judge Woods ordered Marshals Service assistance with serving the defendants in Julia Zabolotsky’s Fair Credit Reporting Act case.
Julia Zabolotsky, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants Equifax, Experian, TransUnion, and Macy’s.
What happened
Zabolotsky v. Equifax concerns Julia Zabolotsky’s claims that Equifax, Experian, TransUnion, and Macy’s violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. She was representing herself and had permission to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The court explained that the U.S. Marshals Service would serve the defendants because Zabolotsky had received that permission. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses were issued and instructed Zabolotsky to notify the court if her address changed.
Judge Woods ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, complete the service forms, and provide the documents to the Marshals Service. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Zabolotsky v. Equifax · No. 1:19-cv-11832
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 28, 2019
Background
Julia Zabolotsky, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Equifax, Experian, TransUnion, and Macy’s. The court had granted her permission to proceed without prepaying court fees in an order dated December 27, 2019.
Service of Process
Because Zabolotsky was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court said she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court explained that the usual rule generally requires service within 90 days after filing the complaint, but she could not serve the defendants until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses were issued.
The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue summonses, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The order also directed Zabolotsky to notify the court in writing if her address changed and stated that the court could dismiss the action if she failed to do so.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the Clerk of Court to transmit the order and an information package to Zabolotsky, issue the summonses, complete the service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and provide the documents to the Marshals Service. The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for that appeal. The order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying Fair Credit Reporting Act claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.