Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03319/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03319-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK EINHEBER,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-3319 PJH

v. ORDER

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Jack Einheber filed this action on June 5, 2007. He also requested leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On October 2, 2007, the court denied the request to

proceed IFP. On October 30, 2007, the court ordered plaintiff to serve defendants with the

summons and complaint by December 17, 2007, stating that the case would be dismissed

if plaintiff failed to do so.

On December 19, 2007, the court received (in an envelope postmarked December

18, 2007) a single-page return of service signed by a Kevin Polk, who stated that he served

the summons and complaint on December 13, 2007, by “[leaving] copies thereof at the

defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and

discretion then residing therein.” The name of the person with whom the summons and

complaint was left was Margaret Woo.

 The return of service does not indicate the name of the parties or the case number, 

the name of the defendant served, or the address where the defendant was served. The

lack of the name and address of the defendant is particularly problematic as the complaint

alleges claims against the Regents of the University of California, the University of

Case 4:07-cv-03319-CW Document 12 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

California at Berkeley, and four individuals – Debra Harrington, Joyce Harlan, Victoria

Harrison, and William Foley. 

“A summons – or a copy of a summons that is addressed to multiple defendants –

must be issued for each defendant to be served.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b). “A summons

must be served with a copy of the complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). Thus, service of the

summons and complaint must be as to each defendant individually. Accordingly, the return

of service is defective and will not be accepted.

No later than Thursday, January 3, 2007, plaintiff must file a properly completed

return of service, showing which of the above defendants was served on December 13,

2007, and at which address. So that it can be properly filed, the return of service must also

indicate the name and case number. 

The court will dismiss the case as to those defendants that plaintiff failed to serve by

December 17, 2007.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03319-CW Document 12 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2