Toro v. Shoedazzle.com, Inc.
Toro v. Shoedazzle.com, Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JASMINE TORO, Plaintiff, 23-CV-5323 (PGG) (BCM) -against- ORDER SHOEDAZZLE.COM, INC., Defendant.
BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Jasmine Toro filed a complaint on June 22, 2023 (Dkt. 1), and a proof of service on July 17, 2023, reflecting service of a summons that day (Dkt. 7), which if valid would have made defendant's answer due August 1, 2023. Defendant has not appeared, and no answer has been filed, nor has plaintiff requested a certificate of default. Plaintiff's service appears to be deficient, because the summons (Dkt. 7 at ECF pp. 3-4) was not issued by this Court, and "did not contain the court clerk's signature and the court's seal.” DeLuca v. AccessIT Grp., Inc.,
695 F. Supp. 2d 54, 66(S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(F)-(G) (describing required contents of summons). Additionally, the summons served by plaintiff incorrectly describes this action as one for "an unpaid consumer debt." Dkt. 7 at ECF p. 3. Plaintiff is reminded that it is her responsibility to serve a summons that meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1), and to do so within 90 days after the filing of her complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) — that is, no later than September 20, 2023. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED. August 15, 2023 ali < BARBARA MOSES it” United States Magistrate Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown