Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03437/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03437-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ORLANDO BACON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-3437 TEH 

PRELIMINARY ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENCY

OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ motion to strike certain allegations of the

complaint and to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process. Although the Court has yet

to fully evaluate the merits of Defendants’ motion, Defendants’ arguments regarding

insufficiency of service of process concern the Court because Plaintiff has attempted several

times to serve the remaining defendants, there is some indication that defendants have

received actual notice, and the Court attempted to resolve the issue by providing Defendants

with the choice of accepting service on behalf of the remaining defendants or providing their

home addresses in sealed envelopes marked “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY’S EYES

ONLY - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.” Stipulation and Protective Order at 2. 

Accordingly, the Court intends to issue a ruling from the bench, if possible, following

oral argument on November 28, 2005. If the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for

Case 3:04-cv-03437-TEH Document 80 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 3
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

insufficiency of service of process, the Court will order Defendants to provide the following

information, with respect to the remaining six defendants, in writing to the Court and to

Plaintiff’s counsel, under penalty of perjury: address of employment, days and hours of

employment, agent(s) authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process

pursuant to F.R.C.P. 4(e) at the place of employment, hours these individual(s) are available,

specific location of these individual(s) within the address of employment, and any other

relevant information that will assist in providing adequate service as to the remaining

defendants. Defendants’ counsel shall be prepared to hand this information in writing to

Plaintiff’s counsel immediately following the hearing. 

However, if Defendants contend that there is no “agent authorized by appointment or

by law to receive service of process,” defendants must be prepared to provide the Court with

an appropriate explanation. Moreover, the Court takes note of Defendants’ statement that

“Plaintiff could have served the remaining defendants at work in accordance with the

California Code of Civil Procedure [§ 415.20(b)].” Defs.’ Motion to Strike & Motion to

Dismiss for Insufficiency of Service of Process at 4. Thus, Defendants concede that

compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b) will constitute valid service

as to the remaining defendants. Accordingly, if defendants take this position and the Court

grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Defendants must provide the following information,

with respect to the remaining six defendants, in writing to the Court and to Plaintiff’s

counsel, under penalty of perjury: address of employment, days and hours of employment,

individual(s) at defendants place of employment who are “apparently in charge” pursuant to

C.C.C.P. 415.20, hours these individual(s) are available, specific location of these

individual(s) within the address of employment, and any other relevant information that will

assist in providing adequate service as to the remaining defendants. Defendants’ counsel

shall be prepared to hand this information in writing to Plaintiff’s counsel immediately

following the hearing. 

The Court reiterates that it is not now ruling on Defendants’ motion. However, the

Court does not wish to waste any more of its resources refereeing needless disputes among

Case 3:04-cv-03437-TEH Document 80 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 3
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

the parties and would like this matter promptly resolved. Accordingly, Defendants’ counsel

shall bring the above information in writing to the hearing in the event that the Court grants

Defendants’ motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/22/05 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-03437-TEH Document 80 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3