Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01020-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LITA CORBELLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1020 RRB EFB PS

vs.

BENJAMIN FRIEDMAN, et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff initiated this action on May 30, 2007 by filing a complaint and paying the

required filing fee. On June 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a letter with the court requesting a fee waiver.

The court construes this as a request to proceed in forma pauperis, and because plaintiff has

already paid the filing fee, a request for a refund of the previously paid fee. 

The letter filed by plaintiff fails fully to inform the court whether plaintiff is unable to

prepay fees and costs or give security for them, and therefore fails to meet the requirements of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied

without prejudice. Plaintiff may file within twenty (20) days from the date of this order a

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court directs the Clerk to send plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01020-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 Defendant “Coldwell Banker Elite” has not joined the opposition or otherwise

responded to plaintiff’s request. 

2

a copy of that application together with this order. 

The court next turns to plaintiff’s “request to enter default,” filed June 26, 2007. This

request asks the Clerk to enter default against all defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

Rule 55(a) provides that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief

is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made

to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default.” 

 Defendants James Friedman, Susan Friedman, the Estate of Benjamin Friedman, Peter

Kelley, Esq., and Richard Gray, Esq., have filed an opposition to this request, asserting that

plaintiff has thus far failed to effect service of process on any of them.1

 In particular, they argue

that plaintiff’s attempted service by mailing via certified mail only, without more, fails to

comply with applicable rules of procedure. 

The court has examined the file and finds that plaintiff has either failed to properly effect

service of process on these defendants, or that the time for filing a responsive pleading had not

expired at the time of her request. Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice plaintiff’s

request for entry of default. 

 The affidavit filed with plaintiff’s request merely contains a type-written list of dates that

she allegedly sent copies of the summons and complaint to the defendants via certified mail. The

proofs of service filed by plaintiff confuse the matter somewhat, as it appears she has served

several defendants at multiple addresses, some in Florida and others in California.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs service of process in federal cases. 

Under Rule 4(e)(2), service may be effected on an individual “by delivering a copy of the

summons and of the complaint to the individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at the

individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and

discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to an

Case 2:07-cv-01020-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 5
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

2

 “ Process consists of a copy, in proper form, of the summons and of the complaint, and

must be sent by first-class mail or airmail, postage prepaid, to the person to be served, together

with two copies of the form of notice and acknowledgment of receipt specified in subdivision (b)

and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.” Judicial Council Comments to

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30 (emphasis added). 

3

agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(e)(2).

Based on the proofs of service filed by plaintiff with the court, it appears that she did not

effect personal service under this provision since she only sent copies of the summons and

complaint by certified mail. 

Alternatively, Rule 4 provides that a plaintiff may serve the summons and complaint in

the manner provided by the state rules of service. Specifically, service “may be effected . . .

pursuant to the law of the state in which the district is located, or in which service is effected.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). 

Here, plaintiff attempted to effect service in California through the mail. Under

California law, a summons may be served by mail, but it must be mailed together with two

copies of the notice and acknowledgment provided in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30(b), together

with a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30.2

One copy of the acknowledgment form “must be executed and returned to the sender by

the person to whom it was mailed, or by his agent, if service is to be made on him as an

individual. Service is complete on the date the form is executed if thereafter it is returned to the

sender.” Judicial Council Comments to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30 (emphasis added). If the

form, or an equivalent written acknowledgment of receipt, is not returned to the sender within 20

days after it has been mailed to such person, the sender may attempt to effect service on him in

another manner authorized under the rules. Id. 

Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of § 415.30 because she failed to provide

defendants with the acknowledgment form as set forth in this section; even if she had, defendants

Case 2:07-cv-01020-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/17/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

have not returned it. 

To the extent plaintiff sought to effect service on out-of-state defendants pursuant to 

§ 415.40, the time to file a responsive pleading had not expired as of the date of plaintiff’s

request. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.40 (providing for service by mail on out-of-state

defendants); Judicial Council Comments to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.40 (“[S]ervice is

complete on the tenth day following the date of mailing. Consequently, a defendant served by

this form of mail has 40 days from the date of mailing in which to file a responsive pleading.”). 

Because plaintiff avers that she mailed the summons and complaint to the defendants on

either May 30 or 31, 2007, the deadline for filing a responsive pleading was July 9 or 10, 2007. 

The court notes that it is far from clear whether some of these defendants are truly “out-of-state”

defendants since plaintiff has listed multiple addresses for them. For example, for defendants

James and Susan Friedman, plaintiff has mailed summons to addresses in both Florida and

California. Plaintiff is advised that if she later seeks to renew her request for entry of default, the

court will require her to clearly establish, without any ambiguity, that the defendants were

effectively served. Given the numerous addresses listed for several of the defendants, the court

is not satisfied that service has been effected.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s June 26, 2007, request for entry of default against all

defendants is denied without prejudice

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice; 

2. If plaintiff wishes to renew that request, she shall file within twenty (20) days from

the date of service of this order a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis; the Clerk

is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the application together with this order; and, 

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-01020-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/17/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2007, request for entry of default against all defendants under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 55(a) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: July 16, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01020-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/17/07 Page 5 of 5