Loor v. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 20, 2025
Docket7:25-cv-04784
StatusUnknown

This text of Loor v. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC (Loor v. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC) 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
Loor v. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIDGET LOOR, Plaintiff, 25-CV-4784 (CS) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE EQUIFAX INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action alleging that Defendant Equifax Information Solutions, LLC violated her rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and other federal statutes.1 By order dated June 18, 2025, 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, she is entitled to assistance from the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service.2 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).

1 On the same day that Plaintiff filed this action, she brought another action under the FCRA. See Loor v. Transunion LLC, No. 25-CV-4785 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. filed June 3, 2025). 2Although 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. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Equifax Information Solutions, LLC, 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 of 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 her address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons for Defendant Equifax Information Solutions, LLC, 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 also directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 20, 2025 ( 2 White Plains, New York Cth pakR United States District Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT Equifax Information Solutions, LLC 1550 Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, GA 30309

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)
Loor v. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loor-v-equifax-information-solutions-llc-nysd-2025.