Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2022

Kollias v. Lobue

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-01852
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Kollias v. Lobue, Judge Briccetti ordered summonses and U.S. Marshals service after Danielle Kollias was allowed to proceed without paying fees.

Who this affects

Danielle Kollias and the four defendants—Tina Marie Lobue, Demetra Doumas, Alexander Doumas, and Maria Kollia—were affected. The order directed the clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to arrange service on the defendants.

What happened

In Kollias v. Lobue, Danielle Kollias, representing herself, brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, race-discrimination claims, and state-law defamation claims. The court had allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.

Because she was proceeding without paying fees, the court said she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Tina Marie Lobue, Demetra Doumas, Alexander Doumas, and Maria Kollia. The court also extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the clerk to issue the summonses, complete the required service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Kollias’s claims were legally valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kollias v. Lobue · No. 7:22-cv-01852
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Mar. 9, 2022

Background

Danielle Kollias brought this action without a lawyer. The opinion says she asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claims for race discrimination, and state-law defamation claims against Tina Marie Lobue, Demetra Doumas, Alexander Doumas, and Maria Kollia. In an earlier order, the court allowed Kollias to proceed without paying filing fees.

Service of process

Because Kollias was proceeding without paying fees, the court explained that she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. Normally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court ruled that Kollias could not have served the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses to be issued. It therefore extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued.

The court stated that if the complaint was not served within that period, Kollias should request an extension of time. It also required Kollias to notify the court in writing if her address changed and warned that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so.

Order

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the clerk to issue summonses for all four defendants, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant using the listed addresses, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The clerk was also directed to mail Kollias a copy of the order and an information package. This order concerns service of the lawsuit and does not resolve the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.