Vickie M. Stringer v. Kensington Publishing Corp.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedNovember 5, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-08737
StatusUnknown

This text of Vickie M. Stringer v. Kensington Publishing Corp. (Vickie M. Stringer v. Kensington Publishing Corp.) 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
Vickie M. Stringer v. Kensington Publishing Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : VICKIE M. STRINGER, : : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-8737 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER OF SERVICE KENSINGTON PUBLISHING CORP., : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, brings this action asserting claims of copyright infringement against Defendant Kensington Publishing Corp. By order dated November 3, 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, she is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service.1 Walker v. Schult, 0F 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) (providing that 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 Kensington Publishing Corp. 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

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 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. 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 her address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. All parties must familiarize themselves with the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, which are attached to this Order and available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/ judge/Furman. Pro se parties are encouraged to consent to electronic service via ECF as it would ensure that the pro se party would receive documents in its case promptly by email instead of by regular mail. The consent form, along with instructions on how to fill it out, can be found at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-electronic-service-pro-se-cases. Unless and until

a pro se party consents to receive electronic service, however, counsel are required to serve that pro se party with copies of documents filed with the Court and to file affidavits of such service with the Court thereafter. Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, a copy of which is attached to this Order, all communications with the Court by a pro se party — including the aforementioned letter — should be filed with the Pro Se Intake Unit by either (1) emailing the communication as an attachment in PDF format to Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov (for instructions, see https://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/instructions-filing-documents-email); or (2) mailing the communication to the Pro Se Intake Unit, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007.7 No documents or court filings should be sent directly to Chambers. Copies of correspondence between a pro se party and counsel shall not be sent to the Court. There is a Pro Se Law Clinic in this District to assist parties in civil cases who do not have lawyers. The Clinic may be able to provide Plaintiff with advice in connection with this case. The Pro Se Law Clinic is run by a private organization called the City Bar Justice Center (“CBJC”); it is not part of, or run by, the Court (and, among other things, therefore cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be made by any unrepresented party through the Pro Se Intake Unit). To receive limited-scope assistance from the clinic, Plaintiff should make an appointment by completing the CBJC’s online intake form, located at https://www.citybar justicecenter.org/projects/federal-pro-se-legal-assistance-project. The Clerk of Court is directed 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 further directed to mail a copy of this Order and an information package to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED. Dated: November 5, 2025 New York, New York SSE RMAN ited States District Judge

2 In the alternative, the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices provide instructions for delivering communications to the Pro Se Intake Unit by hand. Additionally, as noted in the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices, a pro se party may move for leave to participate as an ECF filer; if granted leave, the pro se party can file documents on ECF.

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT

Kensington Publishing Corp. 119 West 40th Street New York, NY 10018 Revised: July 1, 2024

INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN CIVIL PRO SE CASES Jesse M. Furman, United States District Judge

Pro Se Office United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 250 New York, NY 10007 (212) 805-0175 prose@nysd.uscourts.gov

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Individual Rules apply to all civil cases involving pro se litigants (that is, litigants without counsel) before Judge Furman.

1. Communications with Chambers

A. Telephone Calls by a Pro Se Party. Pro se parties may not call the Court directly; any questions should be directed to the Pro Se Office at (212) 805-0175.

B. Written Communications By a Pro Se Party. All communications with the Court by a pro se party should be in writing and delivered in person, mailed, or emailed to the Pro Se Office following the instructions in Paragraph 2(B) below. No documents or court filings may be sent directly to Chambers. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all communications with the Court will be docketed upon receipt; such docketing shall constitute service on any user of the ECF system. If any other party is not a user of the ECF system (e.g., if there is another pro se party in the case), a pro se party must send copies of any filing to that party and include an Affidavit of Service or other statement affirming that it has done so. Copies of correspondence between a pro se party and opposing parties shall not be sent to the Court.

C. Communications by Parties Represented by Counsel. Except as otherwise provided below, communications with the Court by a represented party shall be governed by Judge Furman’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman.

D. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time.

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)
Vickie M. Stringer v. Kensington Publishing Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vickie-m-stringer-v-kensington-publishing-corp-nysd-2025.