Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 17, 2022

Lavi v. MUFG Bank

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-03167
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lavi v. MUFG Bank, Judge Oetken ordered Marshals service on MUFG Bank after Pierre Lavi was allowed to proceed without paying fees.

Who this affects

Pierre Lavi and MUFG Bank; the order also concerns the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service. It does not state a service ruling for Danamon Bank.

What happened

In Lavi v. MUFG Bank, Pierre Lavi, representing himself, sued MUFG Bank and Danamon Bank over money in a bank account maintained by Danamon Bank in Indonesia. He relied on the court’s authority to hear disputes between citizens of different jurisdictions.

The court had already allowed Lavi to proceed without paying court fees upfront. Because of that, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve MUFG Bank and instructed the Clerk of Court to issue the summons and prepare the required service forms. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.

Judge Oetken directed the Clerk to provide the Marshals Service with the documents and address needed to serve MUFG Bank and to mail Lavi an information package. The order also told Lavi to report any address change in writing. The opinion does not decide the underlying dispute or state a service ruling for Danamon Bank.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lavi v. MUFG Bank · No. 1:22-cv-03167
Judge
James Oetken
Date
June 17, 2022

Background

Pierre Lavi, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action against MUFG Bank and Danamon Bank, described as an instrumentality of MUFG Bank. He invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction and sought to recover the balance in a bank account maintained by Danamon Bank in Indonesia.

In an earlier order dated June 14, 2022, the court allowed Lavi to proceed without prepaying court fees. The June 17 order addressed service of the lawsuit, rather than the merits of Lavi’s claim.

Court’s Action

Because Lavi was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court directed service on MUFG Bank. It instructed the Clerk of Court to complete the U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve MUFG Bank at the listed address.

The court stated that the usual 90-day service period could not begin before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summons issued. It therefore extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. The order stated that Lavi should request more time if service is not completed within that period. It also required Lavi to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the court may dismiss the action if he does not do so.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete the service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on MUFG Bank. The Clerk was also directed to mail Lavi an information package. The order does not resolve the underlying bank-account dispute and does not state a service directive concerning Danamon Bank.

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.