Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 8, 2021

Sierra v. LaGumina

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:21-cv-07930
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureConsumer CreditPro Se
In one sentence

In Sierra v. LaGumina, Judge Seibel ordered U.S. Marshals service of Sierra’s debt-collection complaint after granting him fee-free status.

Who this affects

Wielmer Oswlad Sierra, John J. LaGumina, and The LaGumina Law Firm PLLC; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to carry out service.

What happened

In Sierra v. LaGumina, Wielmer Oswlad Sierra, who was representing himself, sued John J. LaGumina and The LaGumina Law Firm PLLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The opinion does not decide whether those claims are valid.

Because Sierra had permission to proceed without paying court fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the summonses and complaint. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and said Sierra should request more time if service is not completed by then.

Judge Cathy Seibel also required Sierra to notify the court of any address change and warned that the case could be dismissed if he does not. The court denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order, stating that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sierra v. LaGumina · No. 7:21-cv-07930
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Oct. 8, 2021

Background

Wielmer Oswlad Sierra, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against John J. LaGumina and The LaGumina Law Firm PLLC. The court had previously granted Sierra permission to proceed without prepaying court fees.

Service of the Complaint

The order addresses service of process—the formal delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendants. Because Sierra was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service.

The court extended the time for service until 90 days after summonses are issued for the defendants. If service is not completed within that period, the court stated that Sierra should request an extension of time. The Clerk of Court was ordered to issue summonses, complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms with the defendants’ service addresses, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

Other Directions and Disposition

The court directed that a copy of the order and an information package be mailed to Sierra. It also required him to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

This was an order concerning service and administration of the case; it did not decide the merits of Sierra’s debt-collection claims. The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.