From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abadi v. Apple, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 4, 2023
23-CV-3367 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. May. 4, 2023)

Opinion

23-CV-3367 (PGG)

05-04-2023

AARON ABADI, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant.


ORDER OF SERVICE

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986, alleging that Defendant discriminated against him based on his disability. By order dated April 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.

DISCUSSION

Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 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 Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP)).

Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and the complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that the summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued.

To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Apple, Inc., through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendant.

If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons is 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 plaintiff's responsibility to request an extension of time for service).

Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of Court is instructed to issue a summons for Apple, Inc., complete the USM-285 forms with the address for this Defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Abadi v. Apple, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 4, 2023
23-CV-3367 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. May. 4, 2023)
Case details for

Abadi v. Apple, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:AARON ABADI, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: May 4, 2023

Citations

23-CV-3367 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. May. 4, 2023)

Citing Cases

Abadi v. Adams

See, e.g., Abadi v. Biden, No. 23-CV-8440 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2023) (dismissed for lack of standing);…