Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01527/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01527-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY GRANT CHAPMAN, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, SAN FRANCISCO

NEWSPAPER AGENCY

(CHRONICLE), and TEAMSTERS

LOCAL 853,

Defendants. /

Case No. C07-1527 SBA

ORDER

Before the Court is defendant Teamsters Local 853's motion to quash service and dismiss

complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Def. Teamsters Local

853's Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss Complaint. (“Def. Mot.”) [Docket

No.64]. Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion. (“Pl. Opp’n.”) [Docket No. 72].

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2007, plaintiff pro se Gregory Grant Chapman Sr. filed an amended

employment discrimination complaint against defendants U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC), the San Francisco Chronicle and Teamsters Local 853 (“Teamsters”). See

Docket No. 4. Chapman alleged claims of discrimination, harassment, perjury, fraud and

obstruction of justice. Id. His factual contentions were expressed in a single sentence: “There has

been and continues to be a violation of employment opportunities, denied entitlements as a

[qualified injured worker], with an injury greater than 25% continuous disparate treatment and

Case 4:07-cv-01527-SBA Document 83 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 7
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

threats of retaliation.” Id. 

In July 2007, defendants EEOC and the San Francisco Chronicle filed motions to dismiss the

complaint, which were unopposed by Chapman. The Court ordered these two defendants dismissed

from the case on September 7, 2007. See Docket No. 31.

On August 13, 2007, Chapman filed a motion for entry of default against Teamsters. This

motion was declined by the court clerk on the following day. See Docket No. 21. On September 7,

2007, Teamsters moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to quash service of process. See Docket No.

32. On October 30, 2007, this Court granted Teamsters motion to quash service and gave plaintiff 30

days to effect proper service on Teamsters. The Order held that if service was not properly effected

within 30 days, the case would be dismissed with prejudice.

On November 28, 2007, via Same Day Attorney Service, plaintiff attempted to serve the

summons and complaint to the Teamsters at their San Leandro Office. See Docket No. 73. At

12:45pm, clerical worker Janice Johnson, told the delivery agent that no officers were present. Id.

The delivery agent returned the following morning at 8:52am and was told again that no officers

were present. Id. At that time the delivery agent informed Ms. Johnson that she was sub-serving her

with the documents as “the person apparently in charge of the office.” Id.

The central issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff effectively served the defendant

pursuant to Federal Rule 4, or in the alternative, met the elements of “substitute” service pursuant to

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §415.20(a).

LEGAL STANDARD

A court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant without proper service of

process. See Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987); Direct Mail

Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A federal

court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4”). A judgment is void where the requirements for effective service have not

been met. See Mason v. Genisco Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1992); Veeck v.

Case 4:07-cv-01527-SBA Document 83 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 7
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 3

Commodity Enters., Inc., 487 F.2d 423, 426 (9th Cir. 1973). 

Insufficient service of process may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(5). When a defendant challenges service, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing its

sufficiency. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). Sufficiency of process is

determined by Rule 4. See Employee Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 999 (9th

Cir. 2007). Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives

sufficient notice of the complaint. United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co.,

736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984). “However, neither actual notice nor simply naming the

defendant in the complaint will provide personal jurisdiction absent ‘substantial compliance with

Rule 4.’” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 870 (1987)

(citation omitted).

Rule 4(h) governs service on unincorporated associations. Under Rule 4(h), a plaintiff may

serve an association by delivering a copy of the summons to an officer, managing or general agent,

or to any other authorized agent. In the Ninth Circuit, “service of process is not limited solely to

officially-designated officers, managing agents, or agent appointed by law for the receipt of

process.” Direct Mail Specialists, 840 F.2d at 688. Service may be made “upon a representative so

integrated with the organization that he will know what to do with the papers.” Id. (citation

omitted). Service on an individual who holds a position that indicates authority with the

organization generally is sufficient. Id. 

In the alternative, under Rule 4(h) service may be effected pursuant to the law of the state in

which the district court is located or in which service is effected, in this case California. Under

California law, a summons may be served on an unincorporated association by delivering a copy of

the summons and the complaint “[t]o the person designated as agent for service of process . . . or to

the president or other head of the association, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a

treasurer or assistant treasurer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the association to

receive service of process.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.40(b). If personal service cannot be made, a

Case 4:07-cv-01527-SBA Document 83 Filed 03/24/08 Page 3 of 7
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 4

summons may be served by: 

“leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her

office ... with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter

mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to

the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were

left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after

the mailing.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(a).

Reasonable diligence to effect personal service is necessary, but if the summons cannot be

personally delivered, “methods of substitute service are permitted.” Smith v. Van Dyk, 2007 WL

4570719 at 3 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §415.20, substituted service is not

complete until 10 days after the summons and complaint have been mailed to the authorized agent

being served. Cucci v. Edwards, 510 F.Supp.2d 479, 482 (C.D.Cal. 2007). In Cucci, plaintiff

claimed that the effective date of service was when the paperwork was left with the authorized

agent’s assistant. Id. at 482. The court disagreed and held that since, under proper substituted

service, the summons was mailed to the defendant company’s authorized agent after the initial

delivery, “ ‘service was not complete until ten days after mailing.’ ” Id. at 482-3, quoting Billings v.

Edwards, 91 Cal.App.3d (Cal.App.1979).

DISCUSSION

A. Sufficiency of service of process

Teamsters contends there was insufficient service of process in this case because the papers

served by the plaintiff were given to Janice Johnson, one of the Teamsters clerical employees who

has no authority to receive service of process. Def. Mot., Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to

Quash Service and Dismiss Complaint at 1. (“Def. Mem.”) Similar to Lydia Pinedo, who was served

by plaintiff the first time service was attempted, Johnson was not a person authorized by the

Teamsters to receive service. Id. Johnson herself states that she is unauthorized to receive any

service of process, nor did she tell the plaintiff’s delivery agent that she was so authorized. Johnson

Decl.¶ 4, 5. She is also not a president, vice-president, officer or any other type of manager

Case 4:07-cv-01527-SBA Document 83 Filed 03/24/08 Page 4 of 7
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 5

employed by Teamsters. Id. at ¶ 4. Teamsters asserts that plaintiff’s attempt did not effect service

of process pursuant to applicable state law. Def. Mem. at 2. Thus, having failed in his second

attempt to effect service, Teamsters assert that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with

prejudice.

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing sufficiency of process. Brockmeyer v. May,

383 F.3d at 801; Hickory Travel Systems, Inc. v. TUI AG, 213 F.R.D. 547, 551 (N.D. Cal. 2003);

Wishart v. Agents for International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service, WL 494586 at 2 (N.D.

Cal. 1995). Chapman provides no evidence that Johnson was authorized to receive service, or that

she was an officer, manager or other figure “so integrated with the organization” that she would

know what to do with the papers. Direct Mail Specialists, 840 F.2d at 688.

B. Substituted Service

Neither Plaintiff’s Proof of Service (Docket. No.73), nor his Opposition to Teamsters’

Motion displays any evidence that his attempted service complied with the substituted service

requirements under Cal. Code. Civ. Proc §415.20. Pl. Opp’n. In his Memorandum in Opposition

plaintiff states: “[t]he agent then served Ms. Johnson, as a sub-service as reasonable attempts were

made to no avail.” Pl. Mem. of P&A Supp. Opp’n to Quash Service and Mot. to Dismiss Complaint 

at 1. (“Pl. Mem.”) Plaintiff does not claim that he mailed the summons and complaint to Teamsters

Local 845 to fulfill the second requirement under §415.20. And, Janine Vanier, a clerical employee

for the Teamsters San Leandro office asserted in her Declaration that the Union office never

received a copy of the summons or complaint by mail. Decl. of Janine Vanier in Supp. of Def. Local

853's Mot. to Quash Service and to Dismiss at ¶ 3-5. 

Even if the plaintiff had mailed the summons to the Teamsters authorized agent, Rome

Aloise, on the same day it was served on Johnson in lieu of the authorized agent, November 29,

2007, service would not be deemed complete until December 9, 2007, ten days later. Thus, even if

he had attempted to comply with the requirements of substituted service, plaintiff would not have

properly effected service within 30 days of October 30, 2007, as required by this Court.

Case 4:07-cv-01527-SBA Document 83 Filed 03/24/08 Page 5 of 7
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 6

CONCLUSION

Since the record fails to show that Johnson was a Teamsters employee who was authorized to

receive service of process and plaintiff did not fulfill the requirements under substituted service, and

in light of this Court’s Order granting Plaintiff 30 days to effect service of process, [Docket No. 55],

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as to Defendant Teamsters Local 853 is hereby DISMISSED

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 3/20/08 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01527-SBA Document 83 Filed 03/24/08 Page 6 of 7
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 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY GRANT CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

US EEOC et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-01527 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 24, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Gregory Grant Chapman

945 Danrose Drive #H

American Canyon, CA 94503

Dated: March 24, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-01527-SBA Document 83 Filed 03/24/08 Page 7 of 7