Brock v. CVS Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Judge Briccetti ordered more information about an unserved officer, extended the service deadline, and paused defendants’ responses.
The order affected Terrell K. Brock, the six named defendants, the City of White Plains Law Department, and the U.S. Marshals Service. It required the Law Department to identify potentially involved officers, extended the deadline to serve Jose Luis Formoso, and paused the defendants’ response deadlines.
What happened
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Terrell K. Brock, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, filed a second amended complaint against six defendants. The opinion does not describe the substance of his claims.
All defendants except White Plains Police Officer Jose Luis Formoso had been served. A process server tried to serve Formoso at the White Plains Police Department but was told he did not work there. The City of White Plains Law Department also had not answered the court’s request to identify the officers involved in the arrests described in Brock’s complaint.
The court ordered the City’s Law Department to determine whether Formoso was involved and to identify other officers mentioned in the complaint. Judge Briccetti extended Brock’s deadline to serve Formoso to January 17, 2023, and paused the deadline for all defendants to answer or otherwise respond until the court issued another order.
The detailed version
- Brock v. CVS Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-04014
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Terrell K. Brock filed a second amended complaint against six defendants: CVS Corporation; Leonardo Coronado; Ashley Camacho; the City of White Plains; Jose Luis Formoso; and P.O.C. Browning. Brock was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. The opinion does not explain the legal claims in the complaint.
Because Brock was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court and the U.S. Marshals Service were responsible for attempting service of the complaint. All defendants except White Plains Police Officer Jose Luis Formoso had been served. On August 25, 2022, the Marshals Service attempted to serve Formoso at the White Plains Police Department, but the service receipt stated that he did not work there.
Identification of Officers
On May 20, 2022, the court ordered the City of White Plains Law Department to identify the police officers who arrested Brock on April 3, 2020, and April 13, 2020. The Law Department had not responded. The opinion states that the Law Department had accepted service for the City and had also received the second amended complaint and other court orders.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the City of White Plains Law Department, by November 16, 2022, to determine whether Formoso was involved in the events described in the second amended complaint, identify any other White Plains police officers referred to in the complaint—including the officers who arrested Brock on the two stated dates—and provide that information by letter to the court and Brock.
The court extended Brock’s deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which governs the time for serving a defendant, to serve Formoso until January 17, 2023. The court also stayed, or paused, the time for all defendants to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint until a further court order. The order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide the merits of Brock’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.