Evelyn v. Rantab Enterprises Incorporated

Background

Rochelle Evelyn, also identified in the complaint as “Rachel baht Yahudah,” and Royce Corley, also identified as “Yisrael ben Yahudah,” appeared without lawyers. They alleged that they were married and brought claims on their own behalf and on behalf of their deceased daughter, identified in the order as DBY. The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, as well as state-law claims, seeking damages and declaratory relief.

The defendants named in the complaint were Rantab Enterprises Incorporated, Anjali Singh, M.D., Christina Liu, M.D., an unidentified hospital administrator, St. Luke’s–Roosevelt Hospital Center, three unidentified police officers, and the City of New York. The court noted that the plaintiffs had been permitted to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Changes to the Parties

Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court directed the Clerk of Court to drop DBY as a plaintiff and add the Estate of DBY as a plaintiff. Because the complaint stated that St. Luke’s–Roosevelt Hospital Center was now known as Mount Sinai Morningside, the court directed the Clerk to drop St. Luke’s as a defendant and add Mount Sinai Morningside as a defendant.

Claims Asserted for the Estate

The court held that Evelyn and Corley could not assert claims for the Estate of DBY without a lawyer. The order explained that when multiple survivors may have interests affected by an estate’s case, one survivor—or the survivors collectively—cannot appear for the estate without legal representation. The court therefore dismissed the claims that Evelyn and Corley asserted on behalf of the Estate of DBY without prejudice. The order stated that a lawyer representing the estate may reassert those claims in this action or in a separate civil action.

Service on Identified Defendants

Because the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare service forms for Rantab Enterprises Incorporated, Anjali Singh, M.D., Christina Liu, M.D., Mount Sinai Morningside, and the City of New York. The Clerk was directed to send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service.

The court extended the service period until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that, if service was not completed within that period, the plaintiffs should request an extension. The order also required the plaintiffs to notify the court in writing if their addresses changed and stated that the court may dismiss the action if they failed to do so.

Identifying the Unnamed Defendants

The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York City Police Department and Mount Sinai Morningside to help identify the unnamed defendants. The unidentified defendants included a hospital administrator and three police officers whom the plaintiffs alleged were involved in their detention at Mount Sinai Morningside on January 23, 2021.

The court directed the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York and counsel for Mount Sinai Morningside to provide the identities, service addresses, and, when appropriate, badge numbers of those defendants to the plaintiffs and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, the plaintiffs were directed to file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and that it would screen the amended complaint before deciding whether to order service.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett directed the party changes, dismissed the Estate of DBY’s claims as asserted by Evelyn and Corley without prejudice, ordered service on the identified defendants, and ordered efforts to identify the unnamed defendants. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. This was a procedural order; it did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.