Manzano v. RNN/Credit Corp Solutions
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-05989
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Manzano v. RNN/Credit Corp. Solutions: Judge Failla ordered U.S. Marshals to serve the defendant in Manzano’s credit-reporting lawsuit.
Donald Addison Manzano and RNN/Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc.; the order directs the court clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to arrange service of the lawsuit and provides Manzano with information about a legal-assistance clinic.
What happened
In Manzano v. RNN/Credit Corp. Solutions, Donald Addison Manzano, representing himself, alleges that RNN/Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc. made an unauthorized inquiry on his credit report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Because Manzano was allowed to proceed without paying fees in advance, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve RNN/Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc. The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, unless Manzano requests more time.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the Clerk to provide the summons and service materials to the Marshals Service, referred Manzano to a legal-assistance clinic for people representing themselves, and directed that an information package be mailed to him. The order did not decide whether the alleged credit-report inquiry violated federal law.
The detailed version
- Manzano v. RNN/Credit Corp Solutions · No. 1:23-cv-05989
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 24, 2023
Background
Donald Addison Manzano, who is representing himself, brought an action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing credit-reporting practices. He alleges that RNN/Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc. made an unauthorized inquiry on his credit report. The opinion states that the court had granted Manzano permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of process
Because Manzano was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue a summons, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with the defendant’s address, and give the Marshals Service the documents needed to complete service.
The court explained that the usual 90-day service period runs from the filing of the complaint, but that a plaintiff proceeding without prepaying fees could not serve the summons and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered a summons issued. The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. It stated that if service is not completed within that period, Manzano should request an extension of time. The court also directed Manzano to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Legal assistance and disposition
The court referred Manzano to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for people representing themselves in civil lawsuits in the Southern District of New York. The opinion explains that the clinic is operated by a private organization and is not part of the court.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue the summons, complete the service form, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. It also referred Manzano to the clinic and directed the Clerk to mail him an information package. This was an order concerning service and related assistance; the court did not rule on the merits of Manzano’s Fair Credit Reporting Act allegations.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.