Cruz v. 32BJ SEIU
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-11836
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cruz v. 32BJ SEIU, Judge Schofield asked the Clerk to prepare service paperwork for ABM Industries for pro se plaintiff Cruz.
Carina Cruz and ABM Industries; the order also concerns the service of the Second Amended Complaint naming 32BJ SEIU.
What happened
In Cruz v. 32BJ SEIU, Carina Cruz filed a second amended complaint adding 32BJ SEIU. ABM Industries had not yet been served with that complaint.
Because Cruz had permission to proceed without paying court fees and was representing herself, the court said she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve ABM Industries.
Judge Schofield asked the Clerk of Court to prepare the required service form, issue a summons, provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service, and mail the order to Cruz.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. 32BJ SEIU · No. 1:19-cv-11836
- Lorna Schofield
- July 1, 2020
Background
On June 30, 2020, pro se Plaintiff Carina Cruz filed a Second Amended Complaint adding Defendant 32BJ SEIU. The opinion states that Defendant ABM Industries had not yet been served with the amended complaint. Cruz had previously been granted permission to proceed without paying court fees.
Service of Process
The court explained that a plaintiff permitted to proceed without paying court fees may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service. It cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which addresses service in such cases, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), which requires the court to order Marshals Service assistance when an eligible plaintiff requests it.
Order
The court asked the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for ABM Industries, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve ABM Industries with the Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk was also asked to mail the order to Cruz. Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order. The opinion does not state whether service was later completed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.