Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00508/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 - 07cv508

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL SOLORIO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-00508-H (POR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

On October 29, 2008, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for

failure to properly serve the complaint and summons on the Defendant. (Doc. No. 18.) The

Court issued a scheduling order on October 30, 2008, whereby Plaintiff was to file a response

in opposition on or before November 14, 2008 and Defendant was to file any reply on or

before November 20, 2008. (Doc. No. 19.) Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition. The

Court submitted the motion on the papers pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)

on November 24, 2008. (Doc. No. 20.) 

Background

On March 20, 2007, plaintiff Raul Solorio (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for judicial

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) denying

Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) On November 28, 2007,

the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed under Federal

Case 3:07-cv-00508-H-POR Document 21 Filed 12/05/08 Page 1 of 4
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 - 07cv508

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to serve. (Doc. No. 6.) On January 22, 2008, the

Court dismissed the case, having received no response from Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff

moved to set aside the dismissal on June 26, 2008. (Doc. No. 10.) On July 10, 2008, the Court

granted Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 11.) In that order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to effect

service within 30 days. (Id.) On August 21, 2008, the Court again ordered Plaintiff to show

cause why it should not dismiss the case for failure to effect service and comply with the

Court’s orders. (Doc. No. 13.) In that order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response on

or before September 22, 2008. (Id.) On September 7, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a declaration

accompanied by a return of service averring that service was accomplished on June 24, 2008.

(Doc. No. 14, Skidmore Decl. ¶ 3.) On that basis, the Court issued a scheduling order for the

parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 15.) In response to notice of that

scheduling order, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint claiming that Plaintiff

has never properly served the summons and complaint. (Doc. No. 18.)

Discussion

The Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendants who have not been properly served in

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. S.E. C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th

Cir.2007) (citations omitted). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)(A)–(B), a

plaintiff serving the United States and its agencies, corporations, officers, or employees, must

“deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States attorney for the

district where the action is brought–or to an assistant United States attorney or clerical

employee whom the United States attorney designates” and must “send a copy of each by

registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.”

When service of process is properly challenged, the party on whose behalf service was made,

the plaintiff, has the burden to establish its validity. Aetna Business Credit, Inc. v. Universal

Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir.1981). Return of service is prima

facie evidence of how service was effectuated. O'Brien v. R .J. O'Brien & Assocs., Inc., 998

F.2d 1394, 1398 (7th Cir.1993). If it appears that effective service can be made and there has

been no prejudice to the defendant, the court will quash service rather than dismiss the action.

Case 3:07-cv-00508-H-POR Document 21 Filed 12/05/08 Page 2 of 4
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 - 07cv508

Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25, 31 (3rd Cir.1992).

Defendant attacks Plaintiff’s service of process on the grounds that it never received any

service of a summons or complaint in this matter. (Doc. No. 18 at p.1.) Plaintiff submitted a

copy of a return of service form and copies of certified mail return receipts in connection with

a previously filed declaration in response to an order to show cause. (Doc. No. 14.) Defendant

attacks Plaintiff’s return of service form filled out by a process service, purporting to have

personally served a “Receptionist” at 880 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101, as not being

signed by an individual designated to accept service on the United States Attorney. (Id. at p.3;

Doc. No. 18 at p.2.) Plaintiff submitted the return receipts to offer proof that he sent by

certified mail the summons and complaint to the Attorney General in Washington, D.C. and

to the Commissioner of Social Security in Baltimore, M.D. (Doc. No. 14 at p.2.) Defendant

argues that Plaintiff fails to make clear what exactly he purportedly served on the Attorney

General and the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 18 at p.2.) Additionally,

Defendant avers that neither the United States Attorney in the Southern District of California

nor the Attorney General’s office have any record of receiving Plaintiff’s summons and

complaint. (Doc. No. 18 at p.2, Wiggins Decl. ¶¶4–5.) 

Plaintiff fails to establish the validity of his service on the United States Attorney or the

Attorney General. Defendant challenges Plaintiff’s service of process, and in response,

Plaintiff has filed no opposition to Defendant’s motion. Although Plaintiff’s return of service

and certified mail receipts may provide prima facie evidence of how service was made, they

do not overcome Defendant’s challenges to the insufficiency of service. Thus, Plaintiff has

failed to meet his burden. Therefore, the Court grants without prejudice Defendant’s motion

to dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process. 

Conclusion 

Based on the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to

dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process and terminates the action without

prejudice. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff a final extension of thirty (30) days to properly serve

Defendant. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 3:07-cv-00508-H-POR Document 21 Filed 12/05/08 Page 3 of 4
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 - 07cv508

Procedure within 30 days from the date of this order and file a proof of service with this Court

on or before January 5, 2009. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2008

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:07-cv-00508-H-POR Document 21 Filed 12/05/08 Page 4 of 4