Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 14, 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
4
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Anderson v. Schneider National Inc., Judge Halpern ordered renewed service of the lawsuit on both defendants.

Who this affects

Alishia Anderson, Schneider National Inc., and Scott Tomick. The order also directs actions by the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Alishia Anderson brought an employment discrimination lawsuit against Schneider National Inc. and Scott Tomick. Earlier attempts by the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them at two addresses were unsuccessful.

Because Anderson had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court said she could rely on the court and the Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after new summonses are issued.

Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the Clerk to prepare new service paperwork and summonses and directed the Marshals Service to serve both defendants at the Green Bay, Wisconsin address. The Marshals Service must also mail the complaint and service-waiver forms; defendants may have to pay service expenses if they refuse to waive service without good cause.

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
Nov. 14, 2022

Background

Alishia Anderson brought an employment discrimination action against Schneider National Inc. and Scott Tomick, identified in the complaint as Schneider's “Driver Business Leader.” Anderson 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 initially directed the Clerk to provide the Marshals Service with the Montgomery address for service on both defendants. The Marshals Service reported that neither defendant could be served there because the address was “a vacant field.” The court then ordered service at the Green Bay address. The Marshals Service later reported that Schneider's legal department would not accept service for an individual or provide information about current employees unless ordered by a court.

Court's analysis

The court noted that Anderson had been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning she could rely on the court and the Marshals Service to carry out service. Federal law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the court to order service by the Marshals Service in such cases.

The usual rule requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court explained that Anderson could not have served the summonses and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. Because the earlier service attempts had not succeeded, the court extended the service period until 90 days after new summonses are issued based on this order. The court stated that Anderson should request another extension if service is not completed within that period.

Order

Judge Philip M. Halpern requested that the Clerk prepare new USM-285 forms and issue new summonses for Schneider National Inc. and Scott Tomick, then provide the necessary paperwork, including this order, to the Marshals Service. The court directed the Marshals Service to mail the complaint and a service-waiver form to both defendants at the Green Bay, Wisconsin address. If either defendant fails to return the waiver without good cause, the court stated that it would order that defendant to pay the expenses of completing service. This order addressed service only; the opinion did not decide the merits of Anderson's employment discrimination claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.