Liliana Barrios v. Big Fish Entertainment, et al.

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELE BSL Le SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LILIANA BARRIOS, Plaintiff, ORDER -V- 25-CV-3203 (JGLC) (HJR) BIG FISH ENTERTAINMENT, et al., Defendants.

HENRY J. RICARDO, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Liliana Barrios brings this action pro se, asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Lanham Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as claims under state law. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 47), she sues: (1) Big Fish Entertainment, LLC (“Big Fish”); (2) Dan Cesareo; (3) Rocky Bronzino IJ; (4) Lindsey Bannister; (5) Chris Engelmann; (6) VH1 Network (“VH1”); (7) Paramount Global f/k/a ViacomCBS Inc. (“Paramount”); (8) Amazon.com Services LLC d/b/a Prime Video (““Amazon/Prime Video”); (9) Google LLC d/b/a YouTube and YouTube TV; (10) Apple Inc. d/b/a Apple TV (“Apple TV”); (11) Doe Defendants 1-20 (including, but not limited to, BET+, Sling TV, the Roku Channel, Fandango Media, and Pluto TV); and (12) MGM Television Entertainment, Inc. (“MGM”).

By order dated April 23, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (‘IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. On August 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Service Addresses for New Defendants and Updated Service Addresses (the “Notice of Service”). ECF No. 46. On September 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting the Court construe Plaintiff’s filing at ECF No. 46 as a Motion for an Order of Service. ECF No. 51. The Court will construe the Notice of Service as a Motion for an Order of Service and directs service of process on the Defendants named in the Notice of Service using the addresses provided in the Notice of Service, including: (1) Chris Engelmann; (2) Lindsay Banniser; (3) VH1; (4) ViacomCBS; (5) Paramount+; (6) BET+; and (7) Pluto TV.

The Court further directs service of process on Defendant Roku TV using the address provided in ECF No. 28.

DISCUSSION Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she is entitled to rely on assistance from the Court and the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the USMS to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP).

To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Chris Engelmann, Lindsey Bannister, VH1, ViacomCBS, Paramount+, BET+, Pluto TV, and Roku TV through the USMS, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a USMS Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for each of those Defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons for each of those Defendants and deliver to the USMS all the paperwork necessary for the USMS to effect service of a summons and the Amended Complaint on each of those Defendants.

If summonses and the Amended Complaint are not served on the aforementioned Defendants within 90 days after the date that the summonses for those Defendants are issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiffs responsibility to request an extension of time for service).

CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to: (1) issue summonses for Defendants Chris Engelmann, Lindsey Bannister, VH1, ViacomCBS, Paramount+, BET+, Pluto TV, and Roku TV; (2) complete USM-285 forms for those Defendants; and (8) deliver all documents necessary to effect service of a summons and the Amended Complaint on each of those Defendants to the USMS.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2025 New York, New York hand HenrywJ. Ricard United States Magistrate Judge