Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 21, 2020

Ayala v. Sephora

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:19-cv-10214
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ADA / DisabilityCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Ayala v. Sephora, Judge Koeltl ordered Marshals service of Maria J. Ayala’s disability-discrimination lawsuit and extended the service deadline.

Who this affects

Maria J. Ayala, who was representing herself, and the defendants Sephora and Jennifer Rivera. The order also directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take steps to serve the defendants.

What happened

In Ayala v. Sephora, Maria J. Ayala, representing herself, sued Sephora and Jennifer Rivera under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that her employer discriminated against her because of her disability.

Because the court had allowed Ayala to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk to prepare the paperwork and summonses so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve Sephora and Rivera. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.

Judge John G. Koeltl ordered the Clerk to send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service and mail Ayala a copy of the order. The order did not decide whether the alleged discrimination occurred.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ayala v. Sephora · No. 1:19-cv-10214
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
Feb. 21, 2020

Background

Maria J. Ayala brought a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law that prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees because of disability. She alleged that her employer discriminated against her based on her disability. The defendants are Sephora and Jennifer Rivera. Ayala was representing herself.

The court had previously granted Ayala permission to proceed without paying filing fees. In that circumstance, federal law and court rules require the court to order the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint when the plaintiff provides the information needed to identify the defendants.

Service of Process

The ordinary deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) is 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court explained that this deadline could not operate normally here because Ayala could not serve the defendants until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The court therefore extended the time for service until 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, the order states that Ayala should request an extension.

Order

The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms for Sephora and Jennifer Rivera, issue the summons, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The order listed 2103 Broadway, New York, New York 10023, as the service address for both defendants. Ayala was required to notify the court in writing if her address changes, and the court stated that it may dismiss the case if she fails to do so.

Judge John G. Koeltl also directed the Clerk to mail Ayala a copy of the order. This amended order addressed service of the lawsuit; it did not resolve the merits of Ayala’s disability-discrimination allegations.

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.