Gaughan v. Barounis et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF SERVICE: The Court directs the Clerk of Court to: (1) mail an information package to Plaintiff; (2) issue summonses for each defendant; (3) complete the USM-285 forms with the service addresses for Barounis and Viera; (4) deliver to th e USMS all documents necessary to effect service of summonses and the complaint on Barounis and Viera; and (5) send copies of summonses and the complaint to Defendants WGCZ and Stephane and Malorie Pacaud in Prague, Czech Republic, by registered mail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/24/2024) (jca) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AYLIN GAUGHAN,
Plaintiff,
24-CV-4119 (ER)

-againstSTEPHEN G. BAROUNIS, in his personal and
professional capacity, et al.,

ORDER OF SERVICE

Defendants.
EDGARDO RAMOS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the court’s federal question
jurisdiction and asserts claims under Section 1309 of the Violence Against Women Act
Reauthorization Act of 2022, 15 U.S.C. § 6851, and other laws. By order dated July 17, 2024, the
Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without
prepayment of fees. The Court directs service on Defendants.
DISCUSSION
A.

Service on the Named Defendants
Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she is entitled to rely on

the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) 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).

1

Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that
summonses be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding
IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint until the Court reviewed the
complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve
until 90 days after the date summonses are issued.

Service on Stephen Barounis, Katherine Viera, and the City of New York
To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Stephen Barounis, Katherine Viera, and
the City of New York through the USMS, 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 summonses and deliver to the USMS
all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon those defendants.
If the complaint is not served on those defendants 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 her address changes, and the Court may
dismiss the action if she fails to do so.
Service on WGCZ, S.R.O., Stephane Michael Pacaud, and Malorie Deborah
Pacaud
The USMS cannot serve individuals or other entities in other countries. See Cross v. State
Farm Ins. Co., No. 3:10-CV-1179, 2011 WL 13234729, at *2 n.3 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2011). To
allow Plaintiff to serve WGCZ, S.R.O., Stephane Michael Pacaud, and Malorie Deborah Pacaud,
all located in Prague, Czech Republic, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to send each of those
defendants a copy of a summons and the complaint by registered mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(f)(1), (h)(2) (authorizing service on individuals or other entities in other countries pursuant to
the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague
Convention”), Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361).

2

B.

John and Jane Does 1-50
Plaintiff names John and Jane Does 1-50 as defendants in the caption of the complaint.

Because Plaintiff alleges no facts showing how the Doe defendants were directly involved in the
alleged violations, and provides no information that would allow identification of those
defendants, the Court declines at this time to issue an order under Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d
72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), concerning those defendants.
CONCLUSION
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to: (1) mail an information package to Plaintiff;
(2) issue summonses for each defendant; (3) complete the USM-285 forms with the service
addresses for Barounis and Viera; (4) deliver to the USMS all documents necessary to effect
service of summonses and the complaint on Barounis and Viera; and (5) send copies of
summonses and the complaint to Defendants WGCZ and Stephane and Malorie Pacaud in
Prague, Czech Republic, by registered mail.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 24, 2024
New York, New York
EDGARDO RAMOS
United States District Judge

3

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT
Stephen G. Barounis
9 Valleywood Court West
Saint James, New York 11780
Katherine Viera
9 Valleywood Court West
Saint James, New York 11780
The City of New York
Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
WGCZ, S.R.O.
Praha 1 – Nove Mesto
Krakovska 1366/25 PSC 110 00
Prague, Czech Republic
Stephane Michael Pacaud
Praha 1 – Nove Mesto
Krakovska 1366/25 PSC 110 00
Prague, Czech Republic
Malorie Deborah Pacaud
Praha 1 – Nove Mesto
Krakovska 1366/25 PSC 110 00
Prague, Czech Republic