Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 15, 2023

Toro v. Shoedazzle.com, Inc.

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:23-cv-05323
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Toro v. Shoedazzle.com, Magistrate Judge Moses found service likely deficient and reminded Toro to properly serve the defendant by September 20, 2023.

Who this affects

Jasmine Toro was affected because the court identified a possible defect in her service and reminded her of the September 20, 2023 deadline. Shoedazzle.com, Inc. had not appeared in the case.

What happened

In Toro v. Shoedazzle.com, Inc., Jasmine Toro filed a complaint, and a proof of service stated that Shoedazzle.com, Inc. was served on July 17, 2023. The defendant had not appeared or filed an answer, and Toro had not requested a certificate of default.

The court said the service appeared deficient because the summons was not issued by the court, did not include the clerk’s signature and the court’s seal, and incorrectly described the case as involving an unpaid consumer debt.

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses reminded Toro that she was responsible for serving a summons that meets the federal requirements and stated that service had to be completed by September 20, 2023. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Toro v. Shoedazzle.com, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05323
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Aug. 15, 2023

Background

Jasmine Toro filed her complaint on June 22,

  1. She filed proof of service stating that Shoedazzle.com, Inc. was served with a summons on July 17,
  2. If that service had been valid, the defendant’s answer would have been due August 1,
  3. The defendant had not appeared, no answer had been filed, and Toro had not requested a certificate of default.

Service problem

The court stated that Toro’s service appeared deficient. The summons was not issued by the court and did not contain the court clerk’s signature or the court’s seal, which are required contents of a federal summons. The summons also incorrectly described the action as one involving “an unpaid consumer debt.”

Order

The court reminded Toro that she was responsible for serving a summons that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1). It stated that she had to complete service within 90 days after filing the complaint—no later than September 20, 2023. The order did not enter default against Shoedazzle.com, Inc. and did not address the merits of Toro’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.