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 addressed service and response deadlines, requiring an update from White Plains and keeping responses paused.
Brock, the City of White Plains, the White Plains police officer defendants, and the other parties whose deadlines to respond to the fourth amended complaint and cross-claims remained paused.
What happened
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Terrell K. Brock, who was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, sued CVS Corporation, the City of White Plains, and other defendants. The court had previously directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve several White Plains police officers, but proof of service had not been filed for those officers, and no lawyer had appeared for Police Officer Browning.
The court ordered the City of White Plains’s lawyers to tell the court by April 21, 2023, whether they would accept electronic service of the fourth amended complaint for the remaining White Plains police officer defendants. If they agreed, they also had to file a notice showing that they represented all of those officers. The court kept the deadline for all parties to answer, file motions, or otherwise respond to the complaint and any cross-claims paused until a further order.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Brock permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The order addressed service and case management; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Brock v. CVS Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-04014
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Terrell K. Brock filed this action on May 16, 2022. The opinion states that Brock was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. Because he had that status, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service of process, meaning formally deliver the lawsuit to the defendants.
The City of White Plains Law Department had previously told the court that the City would accept service for all White Plains police officers involved at the Corporation Counsel’s office. The court then directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve several police officers at that address and extended the deadline for service to April 12, 2023. As of this order, proof of service had not been filed for Police Officers Beall, DiPaterio, Formoso, Glynn, Horgan, Levito, Schneider, or Vanderwalker. The opinion also states that Police Officer Browning had been served on August 25, 2022, but no notice of appearance—a filing showing that a lawyer represents a party—had been filed for Browning.
Court’s order
The court ordered counsel for the City of White Plains to inform the court by April 21, 2023, whether they agreed to accept electronic service of the fourth amended complaint on behalf of the remaining White Plains police officer defendants. If the City agreed, its counsel had to file a notice of appearance for all those defendants by the same date.
The court also ordered that the time for all parties to answer, file motions, or otherwise respond to the fourth amended complaint and any cross-claims would remain paused until a further court order.
Appeal-fee ruling and effect
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order dealt with service, representation, response deadlines, and appeal-fee status. 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.