Perez v. Oxford University
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-04844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Perez v. Oxford University, Judge Nathan denied Perez’s request for emergency relief and directed procedures for serving the defendants.
Eric Andrew Perez’s request for emergency relief was denied, while the court arranged service of process on the named defendants, including AstraZeneca entities, the University of Oxford, AstraZeneca AB, and three doctors.
What happened
In Perez v. Oxford University, Eric Andrew Perez, representing himself, brought claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and 38 U.S.C. § 7316. The court allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Because Perez was allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to help serve AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca LP, Dr. Mark J. Mulligan, Dr. Melanie Jay, and Dr. Martina A. Parauda. The Clerk was also directed to send the summons and complaint to the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca AB by specified delivery methods.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Perez’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court found that his supporting declaration largely concerned claims unrelated to the defendants and did not show either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions supporting emergency relief.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Oxford University · No. 1:21-cv-04844
- Valerie Caproni
- July 19, 2021
Background
Eric Andrew Perez filed this action without a lawyer under federal-question jurisdiction. He asserted claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and 38 U.S.C. § 7316. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of process
Because Perez was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after summonses were issued.
For AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca LP, Dr. Mark J. Mulligan, Dr. Melanie Jay, and Dr. Martina A. Parauda, the court directed the Clerk to complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. For the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca AB, the court directed the Clerk to send copies of the summonses and complaint by certified mail with a return receipt requested or by Federal Express. The court also stated that Perez must notify the court in writing if his address changes.
Request for emergency relief
Perez requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. To obtain that relief, he had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions supporting litigation together with a decisive balance of hardships in his favor.
The court found that Perez’s supporting declaration largely asserted claims unrelated to the defendants named in this action. It therefore concluded that he had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions and a favorable balance of hardships.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Perez’s request for an order to show cause seeking preliminary injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order. The order also directed the Clerk to carry out the specified service procedures. The opinion does not decide the merits of Perez’s underlying statutory claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.