Starostenko v. UBS AG
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-09993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Starostenko v. UBS AG, Judge Failla ordered steps to serve UBS entities, issued a summons for the Bahamas defendant, and did not decide dismissal motions.
Yuri Starostenko and Irina Tsareva must follow the service deadlines; UBS AG’s counsel must address service for UBS AG; and UBS (Bahamas) Ltd. (in liquidation) is the subject of the newly issued summons.
What happened
In Starostenko v. UBS AG, Yuri Starostenko and Irina Tsareva brought the case without lawyers and were allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. They provided several New York addresses for UBS AG, but the U.S. Marshals Service was unable to serve it.
The court directed UBS AG’s lawyer, within 30 days, either to accept service for UBS AG or provide a New York address where the Marshals Service could serve it. The court also directed the Clerk to issue a summons for UBS (Bahamas) Ltd. (in liquidation), which the plaintiffs had added as a defendant.
The plaintiffs must serve UBS (Bahamas) Ltd. within 90 days after the summons is issued or request more time; otherwise, the court may dismiss those claims for failure to prosecute. Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not state that she granted or denied UBS’s motions to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Starostenko v. UBS AG · No. 1:19-cv-09993
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 21, 2020
Background
Yuri Starostenko and Irina Tsareva filed the action against “UBS AG (a Swiss Bank).” They were proceeding without lawyers and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had previously directed them to provide a domestic service address for UBS AG. They supplied several New York addresses, but the U.S. Marshals Service had not been able to serve UBS AG. Counsel for UBS appeared and moved to dismiss the amended complaint for improper service and failure to state a claim.
The court explained that plaintiffs allowed to proceed without paying filing fees may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. It also cited the requirement that the court order the Marshals Service to serve defendants in such cases and the principle that an unrepresented litigant is entitled to district-court assistance with service.
Orders Concerning Service
The court directed counsel for UBS AG, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: notify the court that counsel would accept service for UBS AG, or provide a New York address where the Marshals Service could serve UBS AG. If counsel declined to accept service and instead provided an address, the court would direct the Clerk to complete the required service form and send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint adding “UBS (Bahamas) Ltd. (in liquidation)” as a defendant and requested a summons. The Clerk was directed to issue that summons. The plaintiffs were directed to serve the summons and complaint on that defendant within 90 days after the summons was issued. If they did not serve the defendant or request an extension within that period, the court stated that it may dismiss the claims against that defendant for failure to prosecute under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to issue the summons and mail it, a copy of the order, and an information package to the plaintiffs. The order does not state that the court granted or denied UBS’s motions to dismiss. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered the order on August 21, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.