Arabatzis v. United Van Lines, Inc.
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-10378
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Arabatzis v. United Van Lines, Judge Rearden ordered service on Manning and required Manning to state whether it consents to removal.
Constance Elaine Arabatzis, United Van Lines, Inc. (which asserted it was incorrectly sued under that name), and Manning Claims Services LLC, particularly concerning service of process and Manning’s consent to removal.
What happened
In Arabatzis v. United Van Lines, Inc., Constance Elaine Arabatzis sued United Van Lines, Inc. and Manning Claims Services LLC in New York state court. United removed the action to federal court and said Manning had not been served.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons for Manning and directed Arabatzis to serve Manning within 90 days. Manning must then file a letter within 30 days stating whether it consents to moving the case to federal court. United must serve Manning with the order within two business days and file proof of service.
Judge Rearden also directed the Clerk to mail an information package and the order to Arabatzis, who is representing herself. The order warns that the court may dismiss the claims against Manning if Arabatzis neither serves Manning nor requests more time, and may dismiss the action if she fails to update her address.
The detailed version
- Arabatzis v. United Van Lines, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10378
- Rearden
- Feb. 1, 2023
Background
Constance Elaine Arabatzis filed a complaint in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, on November 15, 2022. On December 8, 2022, United removed the action to the Southern District of New York. The opinion says United was identified in the caption as United Van Lines, Inc., but United asserted that it had been incorrectly sued under that name and referred to itself as United Van Lines, LLC. United also asserted that Dan Manning, the principal of Manning Claims Services LLC, said Manning had not received service of process.
Court’s directives
The court explained that a defendant generally must receive the summons and complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed. It also explained that defendants who have been properly served must join in or separately consent to removal within the applicable 30-day period.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons for Manning. It directed Arabatzis to serve Manning with the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summons is issued. If Arabatzis does not serve Manning or request an extension within that period, the court may dismiss the claims against Manning under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
The court further ordered Manning to file a letter on the docket within 30 days after being served, stating whether Manning consents to removal. United must serve Manning with a copy of the order within two business days and promptly file proof of that service.
Other instructions and effect
The Clerk was directed to mail an information package and a copy of the order to Arabatzis, whom the order identifies as representing herself. Arabatzis must notify the court in writing if her address changes. The court stated that it may dismiss the action if she fails to do so.
This order addressed service and removal consent. It did not decide the underlying claims against either defendant and did not dismiss them in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.