Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03694/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03694-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONI DROUIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03694-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF 

DEFENDANTS DEPUTY GEIST AND 

BRENDA BALDWIN

On March 3, 2017, Defendant Contra Costa County filed a statement, asserting that 

individual Defendants Deputy Geist and Brenda Baldwin were not properly served. (Dkt. No. 71.) 

Specifically, Defendants asserts that with respect to all individual defendants, the service on Stacy 

Boyd, Clerk of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, was not in compliance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or California state law because "Ms. Boyd was not authorized to 

accept service on behalf of these individuals and none of these individuals work in the office of 

the Clerk of the Board." (Id. at 2.) Defendants' counsel then notified Plaintiff's counsel of the 

defective service, and agreed to contact the individual Defendants to determine if he was 

authorized to accept service on their behalf. (Id.) Defendants' counsel received authority to accept 

service from all individual Defendants except Defendant Geist (who no longer worked for Contra 

Costa County) and Defendant Baldwin. (Id.) There is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff has 

attempted to serve Defendants Geist and Baldwin since.

Defendant Contra Costa County requests that the Court dismiss Defendants Geist and 

Baldwin sua sponte, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Id. at 3.) Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(m) states:

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is 

Case 4:15-cv-03694-KAW Document 75 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff 

-- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant 

or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the 

time for service for an appropriate period.1

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to explain, by March 20, 2017, why 

Defendants Geist and Baldwin should not be dismissed , given Defendants' assertion that Plaintiff 

has failed to properly serve these Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

Effective December 1, 2015, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) was amended to reduce the 

time for service from 120 days to 90 days. Although Plaintiff's complaint was filed on August 12, 

2015, prior to the effective date, the operative complaint was filed on November 17, 2016, after 

the effective date. In such a scenario, several courts have applied the 90-day service period to 

defendants newly named in the amended complaint filed after the effective date. See Thai v. 

United States, Case No.: 15cv583 WQH (NLS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52465, at *7 (S.D. Cal. 

Mar. 15, 2016) (concluding that where the initial complaint was filed on March 14, 2015 and the 

amended complaint filed on December 27, 2015, "[f]or the Defendants named in the SAC, they 

are subject to the 90-day service period, as the SAC was filed after the December 1, 2015 change 

to Rule 4(m)); George v. Prof'l Disposables Int'l, Inc., 15-CV-3385 (RA) (BCM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 118556, at *14 n.8 ("While plaintiff's April 30, 2015 Complaint was subject to a 120-day 

service window, the Amended Complaint, filed on December 22, 2015, was subject to the new 90-

day service window").

Case 4:15-cv-03694-KAW Document 75 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 2