Noe v. Ray Realty
- Tarnofsky
- 1:19-cv-01455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Noe v. Ray Realty, Judge Tarnofsky ordered Marshals service of the amended complaint on nine defendants and denied IFP status for any appeal.
Carol Noe, the nine defendants identified for service, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Noe v. Ray Realty, the court addressed service of Carol Noe’s amended complaint on nine defendants who had not appeared. Noe had already been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court had designated the amended complaint as operative.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service. If service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, the order says Noe should request more time.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Noe v. Ray Realty · No. 1:19-cv-01455
- Tarnofsky
- Jan. 3, 2024
Background
Carol Noe was previously allowed to proceed without paying court fees. In February 2019, the court directed service on the defendants named in the then-operative complaint. Noe later filed a proposed amended complaint identifying additional defendants, and on December 15, 2023, the court designated that filing as the operative amended complaint.
The order states that nine defendants first named in the amended complaint had not appeared: Labe Twerski, Sam Becker, Adi Nahmani, 1651 Coney Island Ave 4 11230, 41-25 44th Street “Owners” Corp, 41-25 44th Street Apt A7 Queens, Daejan NY Limited, Robert Gregor, and RRM Realty.
Service Order
Because Noe had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court said she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete the required service forms for those nine defendants. It also directed the Clerk to issue summonses and deliver the paperwork needed for the Marshals Service to attempt service.
The court stated that if the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Noe should request an extension of the service deadline.
Appeal and Disposition
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Noe permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. This order addressed service and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the merits of Noe’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.