Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00898/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00898-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAN TING LONG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ERIC MCAFEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19 -cv-00898-DAD-SAB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION AND 

RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 21) 

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension and for reconsideration 

filed on January 17, 2020. Plaintiffs’ motion shall be granted in part to the extent it requests an 

extension to comply with the Courts previous order filed on December 16, 2019, and shall be 

denied as to any other aspects that seek reconsideration of any previous order. 

I.

BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2019, Wang Ting Long and Xuejun Makhsous (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro 

se, filed this action alleging violations of the Federal Securities Act and California law. (ECF 

No. 1.) On September 24, 2019, because Plaintiffs failed to file proofs of service showing that 

Defendants had been served in this action, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a notice of status of 

service within fourteen (14) days of entry of the order. (ECF No. 10.) On October 7, 2019, 

Plaintiffs filed, and on October 9, 2019, the Court docketed, proofs of service alleging service on 

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 7
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

some but not all of the Defendants. (ECF No. 11.) On October 7, 2019, Plaintiffs also filed a 

request for entry of default against all but two of the Defendants. (ECF No. 12.) 

On October 25, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default. (ECF No. 

13.) In the Court’s order, the Court advised Plaintiffs they were required to file proofs of service 

demonstrating service on the Defendants that Plaintiffs had submitted no proofs of service 

pertaining to, and file amended proofs of service or supplemental affidavits demonstrating proper 

service had been completed on the Defendants that Plaintiffs sought entry of default against. 

(Id.) On November 21, Plaintiffs filed three separate documents in response to the Court’s order: 

(1) a filing a entitled a “motion to reconsider,” which the Court construed as a motion to 

reconsider the Court’s order entered on October 25, 2019 denying Plaintiffs’ request for entry of 

default (ECF No. 16); (2) a document entitled “updated request for entry of default,” with an 

attached proposed order that was entitled “proposed default judgment order” (ECF No. 17); and 

(3) a supplemental affidavit by Plaintiff Xuejun Makhsous (“Makhsous”), describing certain 

efforts to contact and serve the defendants in this action (ECF No. 18). 

On December 16, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and 

updated request for entry of default. (ECF No. 20.) In the order, the Court expressed its concern 

with the modified proofs of service that were submitted by Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Court 

could not accept the modified proofs of service for consideration because: (1) the modified 

proofs of service did not contain a signature and date from the process server or the individual 

who modified the proofs of service attesting to the truth and knowledge of the modifications and 

information conveyed in the proofs of service; and (2) aspects of the modified proofs of service 

appeared to demonstrate that the documents were altered using a computer program, a copier, or 

otherwise, by utilizing signatures and aspects from the other proofs of service to make it appear 

as if the process server had made the modifications. (ECF No. 20 at 16-17.) Based on these 

facts and other reasons explained in the order, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for 

reconsideration and updated request for entry of default. The Court also ordered Plaintiffs to

provide, within thirty (30) days of service of the order, an affidavit from the process server 

explaining the modifications made to the proofs of service and explaining how service was 

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 7
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

effectuated. (ECF No. 20 at 20.) The Court warned Plaintiffs that the failure to comply with the 

order would result in the recommendation of dismissal of this action. (Id.) The Plaintiffs were 

also advised that the Court may consider holding a live evidentiary hearing whereby the process 

server would be required to appear in person to testify as to the modifications made to the 

originally submitted proofs of service. (Id. at 19.) 

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the motion for an extension and reconsideration that 

is currently before the Court. (Mot. Ext. & Recons. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 21.)

II.

DISCUSSION

As described above, on December 16, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file, within 

thirty days of service of the order, an affidavit of the process server, Queenie Orteza (“Orteza”), 

that explains how the modifications to the originally submitted proofs of service were made and 

that explains precisely how service was effectuated in this manner. (ECF No. 20 at 20.) 

Plaintiffs have not provided such an affidavit and instead have filed the current motion for an 

extension of time and for reconsideration. 

In their motion, Plaintiffs state that on November 16, 2019, Makhsous asked Orteza to 

update the proofs of service per the Court’s request,1and Orteza then instructed Makhsous to 

make the corrections on the proofs of service as Orteza was out of town and had no access to a 

computer. (Mot. 4; Ex. 2.) Although Plaintiffs do not explicitly state they then altered the 

original proofs of service, the Court considers this an implicit confirmation of the Court’s 

concern that the modified proofs of service were not in fact modified by Orteza but were rather 

modified in order to look as if the process server had modified them. The Court advises 

Plaintiffs this is not acceptable. See Juarez v. Delgado, No. EDCV130275DDPAS, 2016 WL 

3660613, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2016) (noting that dismissal is an appropriate sanction for 

conduct that abuses the judicial process such as for falsifying a document, and a party’s pro se 

status does not excuse such conduct) (citing Combs v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 927 F.2d 486, 488 

 

1

 It appears this request refers to the Court’s previous order dated October 25, 2019, wherein the Court ordered 

Plaintiffs to file amended proofs of service or supplemental affidavits demonstrating proper service had been 

completed on the defendants that Plaintiffs sought entry of default against. (ECF No. 13.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 7
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

(9th Cir. 1991)). Nonetheless, given the fact that the modifications were apparently made at the 

direction and with the consent of the process server,2the Court will currently decline to find 

Plaintiffs were intending to perpetuate a fraud upon the Court based on these circumstances. 

However, despite the attached emails indicating the modifications were made at the request of 

Orteza, the Court shall still require Orteza to confirm in her affidavit that she in fact advised 

Plaintiffs to make the modifications themselves. 

Turning to the events following the Court’s December 16, 2019 order, Plaintiffs state that 

on December 22 and 23, 2019, Makhsous asked Orteza to provide an affidavit regarding service. 

(Mot. 5.) Plaintiffs argue that Makhsous has been out of the country due to the holidays and has 

not yet received an affidavit from Orteza, and Plaintiffs move the Court for an extension to 

submit an affidavit from Orteza, and to reconsider the Court’s order “pending affidavit from 

Process server Queenie Orteza.” (Mot. 5.) 

The Court has reviewed the emails attached to the motion. On December 22, 2019, 

Makhsous wrote: “Our request for default judgment is denied because of problems with how the 

summons were served upon defendants. Please prepare [an] affidavit of summons and attend 

hearing in court.”3 (Id.) Orteza responded: “I will need the official court request and fee for my 

time to appear is $55 per hour.” (Id.) Plaintiff responded: “The court asks you to provide [an] 

affidavit that you took those photos of Aemetis office, and you have made modification on the 

certificates of service. The court said you doubled checked two boxes that conflicts with one and 

another [sic]. Please send me your affidavits to explain the discrepancy on your certificate of 

service. We hope to avoid your appear [sic] in court in Fresno. See attached court order.” 

(Mot., Ex. 3.) 

 

2

 On November 15, 2019, Makhsous emailed Orteza stating: “I need your updated POS to seek Default Judgment. 

That’s court order.” (Mot., Ex. 2.) On November 15, 2019, Orteza responded: “Sorry I went out of town for 

emergency. Here’s the POS you requested.” (Id.) Makhsous responded: “The court ask[ed] you to check only one 

box not two or more boxes. Those proofs are insufficient.” (Id.) Orteza then responded: “You can just white out 

the section that needs to be erased so it saves us both time than going back and forth on these forms. I’m out of 

town and I have no access right now to a laptop.” (Id.) 

3

 The Court advises Plaintiffs that the Court has not yet ordered that any person appear at a live evidentiary hearing, 

but rather cautioned Plaintiffs that a live evidentiary hearing may be required following submission of Orteza’s 

affidavit, if the Court determines one proves necessary at that time. 

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 7
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

On December 23, 2019, Orteza responded: “Can you please send me the full court order 

including exhibits? If you don’t have it, can you give the lawyer who has it so I can obtain copy

[sic].” (Id.) On the same date, Orteza also wrote: “I served these people and did my work as per 

your instructions. My suggestion is that if they have a lawyer, server their lawyers instead to 

eliminate further issues than argue with the other party about service back and forth.” (Id.) 

The Court is concerned that it appears Orteza is reluctant or unhurried to provide her 

clients, Plaintiffs in this action, with sufficient proofs of service attesting to the fact that she 

completed service. The Court shall grant Plaintiffs motion for an extension and provide an 

additional thirty (30) days to obtain such affidavit from Orteza.4 

However, the Court shall also require Orteza’s affidavit to confirm whether Orteza in fact 

authorized Plaintiffs to modify the proofs of service on her behalf, and the Court shall also 

require Plaintiffs to submit an affidavit from one of the Plaintiffs indicating who in fact modified 

the proofs of service and indicating whether the modifications were completed with authorization 

from Orteza. 

Alternatively, if Plaintiffs cannot, despite due diligence and good faith efforts, obtain 

such affidavit from Orteza, Plaintiffs shall then be required to, within thirty days of service of 

this order: (1) file an affidavit from one of the Plaintiffs attesting to who modified the previously 

filed proofs of service; attesting to whether Orteza provided authorization to complete the 

modifications; and attesting to the efforts Plaintiffs have made to obtain the affidavits from 

Queenie Orteza; and (2) obtain the services of an alternate process server to serve Defendants, 

and submit proofs of service from the alternative process server demonstrating service has been 

completed in this action. 

///

///

///

 

4

 It is somewhat unclear whether Plaintiffs are requesting reconsideration only of the aspect of the Court’s 

December 16, 2019 order requiring Plaintiffs to submit an affidavit from the process server within thirty days, or if 

Plaintiffs are seeking reconsideration on the merits of the denial of entry of default. To the extent Plaintiff is 

seeking reconsideration of any aspect of any previous order other than pertaining to the deadline for submitting an 

affidavit, such request shall be denied. 

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 7
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

III.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and extension (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED 

IN PART insofar as the motion requests an extension of time, and DENIED IN 

PART insofar as the motion requests reconsideration of any other aspect of any

previous order of the Court;

2. Within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall file both:

a. An affidavit of the process server Queenie Orteza that explains how the 

modifications to the originally submitted proofs of service were made;

whether Queenie Orteza authorized Plaintiffs to modify the proofs of 

service; and how service was effectuated on the Defendants in this action;

and

b. An affidavit from a Plaintiff attesting to who modified the proofs of 

service and whether they were given authorization to do so from Orteza;

3. Alternatively, if Plaintiffs are unable to obtain an affidavit from the process server

Queenie Orteza, within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall: 

a. File an affidavit from a Plaintiff attesting to: how the previously proofs of 

service were modified; whether Queenie Orteza authorized Plaintiffs to 

complete the modifications; and the diligence and efforts Plaintiffs have 

made to obtain the affidavits from Queenie Orteza; and 

b. Obtain the services of an alternate process server to serve Defendants and 

submit proofs of service from the alternative process server demonstrating 

service has been completed in this action. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 7
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

Plaintiffs are advised that the failure to comply with this order will result in the 

recommendation of dismissal of this action as Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that any 

defendant has been properly served with the complaint and summonses in accordance with the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and the California Code of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 7