Haber v. Credit One Bank, National Association
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11105
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Haber v. Credit One Bank, Judge Caproni ordered Marshals to serve defendants and extended the service deadline for a pro se IFP plaintiff.
David Haber and the defendants, Credit Sesame and Credit One Bank, N.A.; the order also directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service.
What happened
In Haber v. Credit One Bank, David Haber, who was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, sued Credit Sesame and Credit One Bank, N.A. He asserted claims under the Credit Repair Organizations Act and state law.
The court explained that the U.S. Marshals Service would serve the defendants because Haber had permission to proceed without paying fees. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued.
Judge Valerie Caproni directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Haber's claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Haber v. Credit One Bank, National Association · No. 1:19-cv-11105
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 3, 2020
Background
David Haber, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Credit Repair Organizations Act and state law against Credit Sesame and Credit One Bank, N.A. He originally filed the action in the Eastern District of New York. That court granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees and later transferred the action to the Southern District of New York.
Service of process
Because Haber had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 generally requires service within 90 days after filing, the court explained that Haber could not serve the summonses and amended complaint until the court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered that summonses be issued.
The court therefore extended the service period until 90 days after the summonses for the defendants were issued. It stated that, if the amended complaint was not served within that period, Haber should request an extension of time.
Order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Credit Sesame and Credit One Bank, complete U.S. Marshals Service process forms with the defendants' service addresses, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Haber a copy of the order and an information package. Haber was required to notify the court if his address changed, and the court stated that it could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.
Judge Valerie Caproni's order addressed service of process only. It did not decide the merits of Haber's claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.