Golden v. Verizon
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-05757
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Golden v. Verizon, Judge Abrams ordered Timothy J. Golden to file proof of service or update the court.
Timothy J. Golden, who was representing himself, was required to file proof of service or update the court; Verizon was the defendant awaiting service.
What happened
Timothy J. Golden sued Verizon, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York’s Human Rights Law. Golden represented himself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court had directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Verizon and gave Golden additional time to complete service. No proof of service had been filed when the court issued this order.
Judge Ronnie Abrams reminded Golden to file proof of service by October 26, 2022, or update the court about the case’s status. The order did not decide the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- Golden v. Verizon · No. 1:22-cv-05757
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 15, 2022
Background
Timothy J. Golden brought this action against Verizon on July 6, 2022. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York State Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Golden was representing himself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
Service of the Complaint
On July 25, 2022, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Verizon. The court also extended Golden’s deadline to serve the complaint until 90 days after the summons was issued. It instructed Golden to request another extension if the complaint was not served within that period.
No proof of service had been filed on the docket as of September 15, 2022. The court reminded Golden that he had to file proof of service by October 26, 2022, or otherwise update the court about the case’s status. The clerk was directed to mail Golden a copy of the order.
Effect of the Order
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued a reminder and deadline concerning service of the complaint. The order did not rule on whether Golden’s disability-discrimination or state-law claims were valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.