Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 30, 2020

Jones v. City Of New York

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:18-cv-04064
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jones v. City of New York, Judge Parker granted permission for alternative service on Ryan and Serrano.

Who this affects

Henry Jones and defendants Ryan and Serrano; the order concerns how Jones must serve those defendants.

What happened

In Jones v. City of New York, Henry Jones asked to serve defendants Ryan and Serrano using an alternative method.

The opinion says other forms of service were impracticable because of the COVID-19 national emergency. The request concerned service of the lawsuit, not the merits of Jones’s claims.

Judge Parker granted the request and allowed alternative service, including by mail, under the cited rules. Jones was required to file proof of service by May 4, 2020.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jones v. City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04064
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Apr. 30, 2020

Background

Henry Jones requested permission to use alternative service to serve defendants Ryan and Serrano. The opinion states that other forms of service were impracticable in light of the COVID-19 national emergency.

Legal standard

The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 308. Those provisions allow a court to authorize an alternative method of serving an individual when ordinary methods are impracticable. The opinion states that alternative service may include service by mail.

Ruling

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Jones’s request for permission for alternative service on Ryan and Serrano. The court allowed Jones to serve the defendants by alternative service and required him to file proof of service by no later than May 4, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.