Wood v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06323
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wood v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT, Judge Parker ordered renewed Marshals service and extended the deadline after an earlier attempt failed.
Chad Wood and ViacomCBS/Paramount, because the order arranged another attempt to serve the defendant and extended the service deadline.
What happened
In Wood v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT, the U.S. Marshals Service tried to serve the defendant, but the defendant refused service at that location and said the summons should be sent to its Albany headquarters. The plaintiff had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, so the court said he could rely on the court and Marshals Service to serve the defendant.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a new summons, prepare the required Marshals form using the Albany address, and send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the revised summons is issued. If service is not completed by then, the plaintiff should request another extension.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the order on September 7, 2023. The opinion does not address the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Wood v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT · No. 1:22-cv-06323
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
On January 11, 2023, the U.S. Marshals Service attempted to serve ViacomCBS/Paramount. The defendant refused service at that location and stated that the summons should be addressed to its Albany headquarters.
The court noted that Chad Wood had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Under the cited federal statute and rule, a plaintiff proceeding under that permission may rely on the court and the Marshals Service to carry out service.
Ruling
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for ViacomCBS/Paramount, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form using the defendant's Albany address, and provide the documents needed for service to the Marshals Service. Those documents were to include the order and the initial case-management scheduling order.
The court also extended the time for service to 90 days after the revised summons is issued. It explained that although the rules generally require service within 90 days after the complaint is filed, Wood was proceeding under the fee-waiver permission and the Marshals Service had attempted but failed to complete service. The court stated that if service is not completed within the new 90-day period, Wood should request an extension of time.
Scope of the Order
This procedural order concerns service of process and does not decide the underlying claims. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.