Lewis v. Chrysler

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 28, 2023
Docket7:23-cv-02631
StatusUnknown

This text of Lewis v. Chrysler (Lewis v. Chrysler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lewis v. Chrysler, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK REGINA LEWIS, Plaintiff, -against- ORDER OF SERVICE

CHRYLSER; FIAT CHRYSLER 23-CV-02631 (PMH) AUTOMOBILES; DONGFENG MOTOR GROUP, Defendants. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Regina Lewis, of Newburgh, Orange County, New York, brings this pro se action invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff sues: (1) “Chrysler”; (2) Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (“FCA”); and (3) “Dongfeng Motor Group,” which appears to be Dongfeng Motor Corporation (“Dongfeng”). Chrysler appears to be a subdivision of FCA. Plaintiff seeks $1,500,000 in damages. By order dated April 28, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file this action in this court and Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court directs service of Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and her affidavit (Doc. 3) on Chrysler and on FCA at their American headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Because Plaintiff alleges no facts about Dongfeng, the Court does not direct service on Dongfeng, but directs service on Chrysler and on FCA without prejudice to Plaintiff’s amending her complaint to state a claim against Dongfeng. DISCUSSION 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 of her complaint and affidavit on Chrysler and on FCA 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 each of those defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons for each of those defendants and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service of Plaintiff’s complaint and affidavit upon those defendants at their American headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan. If service of Plaintiff’s complaint and affidavit is not performed on Chrysler and on FCA within 90 days after the date the summonses 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 plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service). Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if her address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so.

1 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 summonses, Plaintiff’s complaint, and her affidavit until the Court reviewed the complaint and the affidavit and ordered that summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date that summonses are issued. CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail an information package to Plaintiff. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Defendants Chrysler and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles; complete USM-285 forms with the addresses of those defendants; and deliver all documents necessary to effect service of Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and affidavit (Doc. 3) on those defendants at their American headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan, to the U.S. Marshals Service. SO ORDERED: Dated: White Plains, New York April 28, 2023

United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Chrysler 1000 Chrysler Drive Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Chrysler Headquarters 1000 Chrysler Drive Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lewis v. Chrysler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-chrysler-nysd-2023.