Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 26, 2022

Anderson v. Schneider National Inc.

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:22-cv-01689
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Anderson v. Schneider National Inc., Judge Halpern ordered new service efforts, extending the deadline without deciding the discrimination claims.

Who this affects

Alishia Anderson, Schneider National Inc., and Scott Tomick; the order also directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take further service-related actions.

What happened

Alishia Anderson brought an employment discrimination action against Schneider National Inc. and Scott Tomick. She was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, so the court and U.S. Marshals Service were responsible for serving the defendants.

The Marshals could not serve either defendant at the Montgomery, New York address because it was a vacant field. The court directed that both defendants be served at the Green Bay, Wisconsin address provided in the order.

Judge Halpern directed the Clerk of Court to prepare new service forms and summonses and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. He also extended the service period until 90 days after the new summonses are issued; the order did not decide the discrimination claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Anderson v. Schneider National Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-01689
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
May 26, 2022

Background

Alishia Anderson brought an employment discrimination action against Schneider National Inc. and Scott Tomick, whom the complaint identifies as Schneider’s “Driver Business Leader.” Anderson was granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees. In such cases, the court must direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.

The complaint provided a Montgomery, New York address for Tomick and a Green Bay, Wisconsin address for Schneider. An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission letter attached to the complaint also listed the Montgomery address for Schneider. The court previously directed the Clerk of Court to give the Marshals that Montgomery address for service on both defendants.

Service Problem

The Marshals filed process forms stating that neither defendant could be served at the Montgomery address because the location was “a vacant field.”

Court’s Action

The court directed the Marshals to attempt service on both defendants at the Green Bay, Wisconsin address listed in the order. It directed the Clerk of Court to complete service forms for Schneider National Inc. and Scott Tomick, issue new summonses for each defendant, and provide the Marshals with the paperwork needed to serve them.

The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the new summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Anderson should request an additional extension. This order addressed service of process only; it did not decide the merits of Anderson’s employment discrimination 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.