Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 27, 2023

Manuela v. Transunion LLC

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:23-cv-10998
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Braend Manuela v. TransUnion, LLC, Judge Torres ordered U.S. Marshals service and denied IFP status for any appeal.

Who this affects

Braend Manuela and TransUnion, LLC; the order primarily affects the process for serving TransUnion and Manuela’s ability to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal.

What happened

Braend Manuela sued TransUnion, LLC under, among other laws, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court had already allowed Manuela to proceed without prepaying filing fees and issued this order to arrange service of the lawsuit.

Because Manuela was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk to issue a summons and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The service period was extended to 90 days after the summons is issued, and Manuela was told to request more time if service is not completed by then.

Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk to mail Manuela an information package and arrange service on TransUnion. The court also stated that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Manuela v. Transunion LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10998
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Dec. 27, 2023

Background

Braend Manuela, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action against TransUnion, LLC under, among other things, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In an order dated December 21, 2023, the Court allowed Manuela to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service of Process

Because Manuela was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the Court explained that Manuela could rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve TransUnion. The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue a summons, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with TransUnion’s service address, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

The Court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summons is issued because Manuela could not have served TransUnion before the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summons issued. If service is not completed within that period, Manuela should request an extension of time. Manuela must also notify the Court in writing of any address change, and the Court stated that the action may be dismissed if Manuela fails to do so.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk to mail Manuela an information package and arrange service on TransUnion through the U.S. Marshals Service. The Court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.