Abadi v. British Airways PLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-10825
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Abadi v. British Airways, Judge Netburn ordered steps to serve British Airways and two individual defendants.
Aaron Abadi, British Airways PLC, Matthew Roberts, Wendy Gomez, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Abadi v. British Airways PLC, the court addressed how Aaron Abadi’s lawsuit would be formally delivered to British Airways PLC, Matthew Roberts, and Wendy Gomez. It referred to an earlier order requiring summonses and service paperwork.
The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve British Airways through its New York registered agent, CT Corporation System, at 28 Liberty Street in New York City. The Clerk was told to issue a new summons and provide the Marshals Service with the necessary paperwork.
Judge Sarah Netburn also stated that Abadi must make sure service occurs within 90 days after the summons is issued, request more time if needed, and notify the court in writing of any address change. The court warned that the case could be dismissed if he failed to update his address.
The detailed version
- Abadi v. British Airways PLC · No. 1:21-cv-10825
- Paul Gardephe
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
The court had previously directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for British Airways PLC, Matthew Roberts, and Wendy Gomez; complete the forms used by the Marshals Service to make service; and provide the service documents to the U.S. Marshals Service.
Order
The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve British Airways PLC through its registered agent for service of process in New York, CT Corporation System. The specified address was 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005. The Clerk was instructed to issue a new summons for British Airways and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to complete service.
Requirements and disposition
The order states that Aaron Abadi is responsible for ensuring service is completed within 90 days after the summons is issued. It also states that he must ask for an extension if necessary and notify the court in writing if his address changes. The court warned that it may dismiss the action if he fails to provide notice of an address change. The opinion is an order concerning service of process; it does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.