Johnson v. Starbucks Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SUMMER-ANNIE N. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 24-CV-6266 (KMK) v. ORDER OF SERVICE STARBUCKS CORPORATE OFFICE, Defendant. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297, alleging that her employer discriminated against her based on her color. By order dated August 20, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service.1 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)). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Starbucks Corporation through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process

1Although 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 effected service until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date any summonses issue. Receipt and Return form (““USM-285 form”) for Defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendants. 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 Defendant, complete the USM- 285 form with the address for 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. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 21, 2025 iy Ag White Plains, New York _ KENNETH M KARAS United States District Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT

Starbucks Coffee 2401 Utah Avenue South Seattle, WA 98134