Wimberly v. Red Points Solutions, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-01547
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wimberly v. Red Points, Judge Broderick granted service through the Marshals but denied the request that they pay service costs.
Jason Wimberly and Red Points Solutions, Inc.; the order also directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take steps to serve the defendant.
What happened
In Wimberly v. Red Points Solutions, Inc., Jason Wimberly, representing himself, sued over alleged denial of vacation and sick pay after his employment ended. He brought claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and state law.
Because the court had allowed Wimberly to proceed without paying filing fees, it directed the Clerk to issue a summons and provide the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Red Points Solutions, Inc. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Wimberly’s motion for an order of service but denied his request that the Marshals Service’s service costs be paid by the defendant. The order did not decide whether Wimberly was entitled to the benefits he claimed.
The detailed version
- Wimberly v. Red Points Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01547
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 28, 2020
Background
Jason Wimberly, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and state law. He alleged that Red Points Solutions, Inc. wrongfully denied him earned vacation and sick pay benefits after his employment ended.
The court had previously allowed Wimberly to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Wimberly then moved for an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and directing the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint on Red Points Solutions, Inc. and pay related service fees.
Court’s Analysis
Because Wimberly had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service. The court extended the usual 90-day service deadline so that it would run from the date the summons was issued. It also stated that Wimberly should request more time if service was not completed within that period.
The court directed the Clerk to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue a summons, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. Wimberly was required to notify the court in writing if his address changed.
Disposition
The court granted Wimberly’s motion for an order of service. It denied his request for an order directing the defendant to pay the costs of service by the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was directed to carry out the service-related steps and mail Wimberly a copy of the order and an information package. This order did not decide the merits of Wimberly’s ERISA or state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.