Panton v. Urban Home Ownership Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-00402
StatusUnknown

This text of Panton v. Urban Home Ownership Corporation (Panton v. Urban Home Ownership Corporation) 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
Panton v. Urban Home Ownership Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT PANTON, Plaintiff, 25-CV-0402 (DEH) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE URBAN HOME OWNERSHIP CORPORATION; PAUL MOORE, Defendants. DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging that his employer discriminated against him because of his religion. The Court construes the complaint as asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297, and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131. By order dated January 17, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. 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.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)).

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. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants 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 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 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 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 each Defendant, complete the USM-285 form with the address for each 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: February 3, 2025 New York, New York = OL. LZ DALEE.HO. United States District Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT

Urban Home Ownership Corporation 494 Eighth Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001 Paul Moore Urban Home Ownership Corporation 494 Eighth Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001

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)
Panton v. Urban Home Ownership Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panton-v-urban-home-ownership-corporation-nysd-2025.