Peralta v. PCS USA LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:22-cv-09312
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Peralta v. PCS USA LLC, Judge Oetken denied dismissal because the Marshals’ service failure justified giving Peralta more time.
Yafreici Peralta and the defendants are affected by the ruling on service of process; the motion to dismiss was denied and renewed service was ordered.
What happened
Peralta v. PCS USA LLC is an employment-discrimination case filed by Yafreici Peralta, who was representing herself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants, but the Marshals delivered only some of the required papers, not the complaint.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case because they had not been properly served. Peralta opposed dismissal and requested more time for the Marshals to complete service. The court explained that service failures by the Marshals can justify extending the deadline when the plaintiff provided the information needed to identify the defendants.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He directed the Clerk of Court to prepare new service forms and summonses and give the Marshals the necessary paperwork to serve each defendant within 45 days of the order.
The detailed version
- Peralta v. PCS USA LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09312
- Sarah Cave
- May 2, 2023
Background
Yafreici Peralta filed an employment-discrimination action against PCS USA LLC, doing business as Pitt Cooking Systems, also known as Pitt Cooking Nederland, and Louis van Leeuwen. Peralta was representing herself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court directed the Clerk of Court to provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).
The Marshals Service did not complete service within the initial period. The court granted Peralta’s timely request for an extension. The Marshals later served only the summons, the order directing service, and the order granting permission to proceed without paying filing fees; they did not serve the complaint.
Motion and governing rule
The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5), which permits dismissal for improper service of process. Their only stated ground was that the Marshals Service had failed to serve the complaint. Peralta opposed the motion and requested another extension so the Marshals could properly serve the defendants.
Under Rule 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 90 days, the court must either dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice or order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the service period. The court explained that a failure by the Marshals Service to properly serve process establishes good cause when the plaintiff provided the information necessary to identify the defendants.
Ruling
The court found that Peralta had provided the correct information to the Marshals Service and had promptly requested an extension after service was not completed. It concluded that dismissing her entire action because of the Marshals Service’s clerical error would be unjustified.
The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to complete a USM-285 form for each defendant, issue renewed summonses, and deliver all necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service so that service could be completed within 45 days of the order. The court also directed the Clerk to close the motion and mail a copy of the order to Peralta.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.