Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02105/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02105-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

GLENDA F. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LILLY DUONG,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-2105 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS AND

ORDERING DEFENDANT

TO PAY FULL COST OF

SERVICE

Defendant Lilly Duong, the only remaining defendant in this

action, moves to dismiss the third amended complaint. The hearing

scheduled for June 7, 2007 is VACATED and the matter is submitted

on the papers. Having considered all of the papers filed by the

parties, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

This action began on May 23, 2005, when Plaintiff filed her

original complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The defendants listed in the caption of her complaint were "Lilly

Dong [sic], Nanette Sparks and Gregory Fortner et al." The Court

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 67 Filed 06/04/07 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

1

Plaintiff did not amend her complaint to add San Francisco

Housing Authority as a defendant and the Court dismissed any claims

against it.

2

granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis on

July 12, 2005. Three days later, Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint as of right. 

A deputy United States Marshal attempted to serve Defendants

personally by providing the complaint, amended complaint and other

documents to Tim Larson, the agent for service of process on

Defendants' employer, the San Francisco Housing Authority. Mr.

Larson does not appear to be authorized to receive legal papers on

behalf of Defendants. The Court's docket indicates that the

summons for the three Defendants were returned executed on

September 26, 2005. See Docket Nos. 16, 17 and 18.

Although it was not named as a defendant, San Francisco

Housing Authority moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint. 

On January 11, 2006, the Court granted that motion and instructed

Plaintiff that, if she wished to sue San Francisco Housing

Authority, she needed to file an amended complaint naming San

Francisco Housing Authority in the caption of the complaint and to

state a complaint against it.1 The order noted that, unless Mr.

Larson was authorized to receive legal papers on behalf of the

individual Defendants, the individual Defendants had not been

personally served. The Court instructed the Clerk of the Court to

mail to Defendants a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of

Service of Summons and copies of the original and amended

complaints. The Court cautioned Defendants that Rule 4 of the

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 67 Filed 06/04/07 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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in

saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 

Defendants were warned that, if they failed to waive service of the

summons, they would be required to bear the cost of service unless

good cause was shown for their failure to sign and return the

waiver form. 

Defendants did not return the waiver form. On April 3, 2006,

the Court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants personally. 

According to Docket No. 41, on April 12, 2006, a deputy U.S.

Marshal personally served Defendant Duong with the summons and

complaint.

On May 1, 2006, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. None of the Defendants argued that he or she was not

properly served with the summons and complaint. 

The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff

was given leave to file a second amended complaint. In addition,

the Court ordered Defendants to file a statement showing good cause

why they should not be required to bear the cost of service. 

Defendants did not, nor have they paid the cost of service. 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants again

moved to dismiss the complaint. On October 4, 2006, the Court

granted the motion and dismissed without leave to amend all claims

against Defendants Sparks and Fortner. The Court granted Plaintiff

leave to amend her racial discrimination and due process claims 

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 67 Filed 06/04/07 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

2

On January 20, 2006, Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of

change of address.

4

against Defendant Duong and instructed Plaintiff that any amended

complaint must be filed and served on Defendant Duong's counsel

within twenty days from the date of the order.

Plaintiff timely filed her third amended complaint. Plaintiff

attempted to serve Defendant. According to the last page of

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, on October 23, 2006, Andre

Rene Patterson, a non-party over the age of eighteen, mailed the

complaint to "Defendant's Counsel Daniel G. Cortgirht [sic], 550

Montgomery Street, Ninth Floor." The current address of the firm

representing Defendant, and where Mr. Cortright works, is 601

Montgomery Street, Ninth Floor. The firm’s prior address on

record, however, was 550 Montgomery Street, Eighth Floor.2

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and this Court's October 4,

2006 order and, therefore, the Court should dismiss her third

amended complaint. 

Defendant's motion is without merit. Rule 4(m) provides the

time limit for service of the summons and complaint. Because

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the

Court undertakes service. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). According to

Docket No. 41, pursuant to this Court's order, a deputy U.S.

Marshal personally served Defendant. And, because the Court "shall

issue and serve all process," id., even if Defendant had not been

personally served, the Court would not dismiss Plaintiff's

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 67 Filed 06/04/07 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

complaint for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). 

Nor will the Court dismiss Plaintiff's third amended complaint

for failure to comply with the October 4, 2006 order. As noted

above, Plaintiff made a good faith effort to comply with the order

to serve Defendant’s counsel. Further, in Mr. Cartright’s

declaration, he does not claim not to have received the complaint;

he merely states that neither Defendant nor her counsel were

“personally served" with the third amended complaint. The Court

did not order Plaintiff to serve the third amended complaint

personally on defense counsel. Although the summons and complaint

must be personally served, and according to the docket they were,

subsequent amended complaints need only be mailed to Defendant or,

if represented, her counsel. See Employee Painters' Trust v. Ethan

Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding

that, because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5 and not Rule 4

applies, "service of the amended complaint was complete when

plaintiffs sent it via first class mail").

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion

to dismiss (Docket No. 61). The Clerk shall send Defendant's

counsel a copy of the third amended complaint. Defendant has ten

days from the date of this order to respond to the third amended

complaint, either by filing an answer or by filing a Rule 12

motion. Within ten days from the date of this order, Defendant

shall pay the U.S. Marshal $49.50 for the cost of service and shall

file a notice with the Court that she has paid.

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 67 Filed 06/04/07 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

A case management conference shall be held on Thursday, July

26, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6/4/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 67 Filed 06/04/07 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

WILLIAMS et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONG et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-02105 CW 

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 June 4, 2007, 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.

Randall Jayman Lee

Christi M. Gotvald

Daniel G. Cortright

Walsworth, Franklin, Bevin & McCall, LLP

601 Montgomery St.

9th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-2612

Glenda F. Williams

P.O. Box 43415

Oakland, CA 94624

Dated: June 4, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 67 Filed 06/04/07 Page 7 of 7