Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 18, 2023

Toro v. Gijungle, Inc.

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:23-cv-05834
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Toro v. Gijungle, Inc., Judge Moses warned that service appeared defective and reminded Toro to serve a proper summons by October 5, 2023.

Who this affects

Luis Toro and Gijungle, Inc.; Toro was reminded that he was responsible for completing service with a compliant summons, while Gijungle had not appeared or filed an answer.

What happened

Luis Toro filed a complaint against Gijungle, Inc., and filed proof that he served a summons on July 24, 2023. Gijungle had not appeared or filed an answer, and Toro had not requested an entry of default.

The court said the service appeared deficient because the summons was not issued by the court, lacked the clerk’s signature and court seal, and incorrectly described the case as involving unpaid consumer debt. The court reminded Toro that he was responsible for serving a summons that met the federal requirements by October 5, 2023.

Judge Barbara Moses issued the order. The order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Toro v. Gijungle, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05834
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Aug. 18, 2023

Background

Luis Toro filed his complaint on July 7,

  1. He filed proof of service stating that he served Gijungle, Inc. on July 24,
  2. If that service had been valid, Gijungle’s answer would have been due on August 11,
  3. Gijungle had not appeared, filed an answer, or otherwise responded, and Toro had not requested a certificate of default.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that Toro’s service appeared deficient. The summons was not issued by the court and did not contain the clerk’s signature or the court’s seal, which are required contents of a summons under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1). The summons also incorrectly described the action as one involving an unpaid consumer debt.

The court reminded Toro that he was responsible for serving a summons that complied with Rule 4(a)(1). It also stated that service had to occur within 90 days after the complaint was filed—no later than October 5, 2023, under the dates in the order.

Result

The order did not enter default against Gijungle, dismiss the case, or decide the merits of Toro’s claims. It addressed the apparent problem with service of process and reminded Toro of the service deadline. Judge Barbara Moses issued the order on August 18, 2023.

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.