Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00911/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00911-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND B. GUTHRIE, Civil No. 11-cv-0911-L (DHB)

Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY

HEARING RE: SANCTIONS AND

SERVICE OF PROCESS

v.

JD ENTERPRISE & FINANCIAL SERVICES,

et al.,

Defendants.

On April 18, 2012, the Honorable M. James Lorenz referred this matter to Magistrate Judge

David H. Bartick to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine (1) whether Defendants JD Enterprise

& Financial Services (“JD Enterprise”) and Joseph Dassa’s request for sanctions should be imposed on

Plaintiff Raymond B. Guthrie or his counsel, and (2) whether Plaintiff properly served the summons and

complaint on February 20, 2012, and to produce a Report and Recommendation on the Court’s findings. 

(ECF No. 12.) Based upon a thorough review of the pleadings and evidence presented to the Court, and

for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully RECOMMENDS that (1)

Defendants’ request for sanctions be DENIED and (2) the District Judge find that service of process on

Defendants JD Enterprise and Mr. Dassa was properly effectuated on February 20, 2012. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants JD Enterprise, Mr. Dassa,

and Joe Willis (collectively “Defendants”) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (ECF No. 1.) After over nine months of inactivity, the Court issued a notice

- 1 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 9
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

of hearing for dismissal for want of prosecution under Civil Local Rule 41.1 and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 3.) Shortly thereafter, on February 23, 2012, the summons were finally

returned and executed as to JD Enterprise and Mr. Dassa. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) As a result, on February

24, 2012, the Court vacated the hearing for dismissal for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 6.) To date,

there is no proof of service on record for Mr. Willis, nor has Plaintiff introduced any evidence or

argument that Mr. Willis has been served.

On March 8, 2012, Defendants JD Enterprise and Mr. Dassa filed a motion to quash service and

dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(5) based on allegedly defective and untimely service. (Defs.’

Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 7.) Defendants also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions on

Plaintiff and his counsel for Plaintiff’s purported bad faith conduct based on Plaintiff’s alleged filing

of false proofs of service. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 7:25-28.)

On April 18, 2012, this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge to conduct an evidentiary

hearing to determine (1) whether Defendants’ request for sanctions should be imposed on Plaintiff or

his counsel, and (2) whether Plaintiff effectively served the summons on February 20, 2012, and to

produce a Report and Recommendation on the Court’s findings. (ECF No. 12.)1

 An evidentiary hearing

was conducted on May 15, 2012. (ECF No. 16.)

II. ANALYSIS

The Court finds that a finding as to whether service of summons was completed is a necessary

component of the Court’s analysis of Defendants’ request for sanctions. Accordingly, the Court’s first

inquiry addresses whether Plaintiff properly served the summons and complaint on JD Enterprise and

Mr. Dassa on February 20, 2012. The Court’s second inquiry addresses whether sanctions against

Plaintiff and his counsel are appropriate.

A. Service of Process

1. Legal Standard

Service of process is governed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “The

provisions of Rule 4 delineating the manner of service are construed liberally to uphold service.” 

1

The District Judge held Defendants’ motion to dismiss in abeyance until resolution of the issues

referred to the Magistrate Judge. 

- 2 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 2 of 9
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

Collagen Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Neocell Corp., No. 09-cv-2188-DMS (WVG), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

98228, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2010) (citing Crane v. Battelle, 127 F.R.D. 174, 177 (S.D. Cal. 1989)). 

“Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice

of the complaint.” Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th

Cir. 1988) (quoting United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382

(9th Cir. 1984)). However, “[e]ven if the defendant receives actual notice, the manner of service of

process must substantially comply with Rule 4 requirements.” Bisq’ettes Ceramic Tile, Inc. v. Skinner,

No. C-00-00481 EDL, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22674, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2000).

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

the plaintiff, has the burden to establish its validity.” Solorio v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-0508-H (POR), 2008

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98604, at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2008) (citing Aetna Business Credit, Inc. v.

Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir. 1981)). The Ninth Circuit holds

“that a signed return of service constitutes prima facie evidence of valid service which can be overcome

only by strong and convincing evidence.” SEC v. Internet Solutions for Business Inc., 509 F.3d 1161,

1163 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added); see also RCR Plumbing and Mech., Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., No.

EDCV 10-00995 VA(DTBx), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62689, at *15 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2011) (“Unless

a defect in service is shown on the face of the return, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 requires

defendants to produce affidavits, discovery materials, or other admissible evidence establishing the lack

of proper service.”).

2. Analysis

In the instant case, Plaintiffs filed proofs of service of summons on Defendants JD Enterprise

and Mr. Dassa. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) Plaintiff’s proofs of service state that David Anthony Pinon, a

registered process server employed by Southwest Legal Services, personally served Mr. Dassa in his

individual capacity and as an authorized representative of JD Enterprise at 8:15 a.m. on February 20,

2012 at 16202 Marlington Drive, Whittier, California 90604. (Id.) The proofs of service describe the

individual served as a Caucasian male, approximately 30 to 35 years of age, 5’ 8” tall, weighing 195

pounds, and with brown hair. (Id.) Pursuant to Ninth Circuit law, the Court finds that these proofs of

service constitute prima facie evidence of valid service on JD Enterprise and Mr. Dassa. Accordingly,

- 3 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 3 of 9
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

Plaintiff has satisfied his initial burden of establishing the validity of service which can only be

overcome if Defendants present strong and convincing evidence of invalidity. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court finds that Defendants cannot make this showing, and that service was indeed valid.

Initially, Defendants rely on Mr. Dassa’s sworn declaration that he was never served. (Decl. of

Joe Dassa at ¶ 3, ECF No. 7-3.) However, mere allegations that process was not served does not amount

to the “strong and convincing evidence” required to rebut the validity of a filed proof of service. See

Collagen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *3-4; J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Barksdale, No. CIV S-11-

2994 JAM CKD PS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52583, *14 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012) (“The only evidence

contradicting plaintiff’s proof of service is defendant[’s] own declaration, which is insufficient to

overcome the prima facie evidence of valid service.”); craigslist, Inc. v. Hubert, 278 F.R.D. 510, 513

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2011) (“[W]here a plaintiff has filed a signed return of service, courts regularly find

that a self-serving declaration that a person was not served is insufficient to overcome this prima facie

evidence of valid service.”). 

In addition to Mr. Dassa’s testimony, Defendants maintain they “have conclusive evidence that

the proof(s) of service were clearly manufactured, falsified, and perjured.” (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at

4:16-17.) Specifically, Defendants contend that the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Dassa was not

personally served on February 20, 2012 because (1) the physical description on the proofs of service

does not match Mr. Dassa’s physical description and (2) the videotape and still images of Mr. Dassa’s

surveillance footage show that the summons and complaint were left at the door to Mr. Dassa’s

residence and not personally delivered to any person. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 4:1-6.) 

a. Physical Description

As stated above, the proofs of service describe the individual served by Mr. Pinon as a Caucasian

male, approximately 30 to 35 years of age, 5’ 8” tall, weighing 195 pounds, and with brown hair. (ECF

Nos. 4, 5.) However, as Defendants note in their motion to dismiss and as was evident to the Court

during the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Dassa’s true physical description is significantly different. Indeed,

Mr. Dassa appears to be approximately 6’ 3” tall and weigh significantly more than the proofs of service

/ / /

/ / /

- 4 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 4 of 9
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

 depict.2 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g [“Transcript”] at 27:19-22, May 15, 2012, ECF No. 18; Decl. of Joe

Dassa at ¶ 5.) However, evidence that a proof of service contains inaccurate physical description is not,

in and of itself, strong and convincing evidence to establish the invalidity of the proof of service. See

Collagen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5-6 (providing a recent photo showing that party looked physically

different from what the proof of service indicated is insufficient to demonstrate strong and convincing

evidence to rebut the process server’s declaration). Moreover, despite the inconsistencies, the Court

finds that Mr. Pinon’s ability to accurately depict the physical description of the individual served was

due in large part to Mr. Pinon’s limited ability to obtain an accurate description on the morning in

question. Specifically, Mr. Pinon testified that after responding affirmatively to the name “Joe Dassa,”

Mr. Dassa opened the door for only five to ten seconds before slamming it closed in Mr. Pinon’s face,

and that Mr. Pinon spent a portion of that time looking down at his legal documents. (Transcript at

7:22-8:2, 11:10-12-2.) Moreover, Mr. Pinon testified that he only saw the side of Mr. Dassa’s face

before the door was slammed shut. (Transcript at 12:10-21.) Given the brief period of time in which

Mr. Pinon observed Mr. Dassa on the morning of February 20, 2012, the Court finds that the

inconsistencies in physical description do not amount to strong and convincing evidence sufficient to

rebut Plaintiff’s prima facie showing of proper service.

b. Surveillance Footage 

Defendants also presented to the Court surveillance footage from Mr. Dassa’s home security

system, taken the morning of February 20, 2012. It is this surveillance evidence that, according to

Defendants, conclusively establishes that Mr. Dassa was never served. However, as discussed below,

Mr. Dassa and Mr. Pinon each tell a different version of what occurred at Mr. Dassa’s residence on the

morning of February 20, 2012. Despite Defendants’ contention that the video surveillance evidence

constitutes “conclusive evidence” that Mr. Pinon submitted false proofs of service, the video

surveillance does nothing more than confirm the latter portion of Mr. Pinon’s testimony.

2

Mr. Dassa stated in his declaration and during the evidentiary hearing that he weighs 340

pounds. However, Mr. Dassa’s drivers license (Decl. of Joe Dassa Ex. D, ECF No. 7-5) indicates that

he weighs 285 pounds. Mr. Dassa has made no effort to explain this discrepancy. In fact, Defendants

appear to concede that Mr. Dassa weighs 285 pounds. (See Defs.’ Reply at 2:26-3:3, ECF No. 10.) In

any event, it is clear that Mr. Dassa weighs significantly more than the 195 pounds stated on the proofs

of service.

- 5 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 5 of 9
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

Mr. Pinon testified that after staking out Mr. Dassa’s residence from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on

the morning of February 20, 2012,3

 and having seen no activity at the residence, Mr. Pinon approached

the door and knocked. (Transcript at 7:17-21.) According to Mr. Pinon:

A couple second later, somebody came to the door, asked who it was. I said I had a

delivery for Joe Dassa. He then opened the door, and I said, Joe Dassa? He said, yes. 

Once I lifted my worksheet up to show what I had, I told him I had legal documents,

and he slammed the door in my face.

(Transcript at 7:22-8:2.) Following this encounter, Mr. Pinon left the legal documents at the front door

after stating to Mr. Dassa through the closed door that he was leaving the legal documents on the

doorstep. (Transcript at 8:3-8.)

According to Mr. Dassa, he was asleep in his home at the time Mr. Pinon left the summons on

his doorstep. (Decl. of Joe Dassa at ¶3.) Mr. Dassa testified that he never saw Mr. Pinon on February

20, 2012 and he did not become aware of the documents on his doorstep until later that morning when

he opened the door and saw the documents on the ground. (Transcript at 27:1-6.)4

Clearly, either Mr. Pinon or Mr. Dassa has provided the Court with an inaccurate account of

what truly occurred. Based on the divergent accounts, the Court looks to the surveillance evidence in

an attempt to understand what actually occurred. During the evidentiary hearing Defendants presented

eleven photographs of still images taken from Mr. Dassa’s home surveillance video. The photographs

demonstrate the following key events:

• At 8:07:11 a.m., Mr. Pinon was walking on the driveway as he approached the house.

• At 8:07:23 a.m., Mr. Pinon was standing at the front door and appears to be ringing the

3

Mr. Pinon also testified that he had attempted to serve Mr. Dassa on February 17, 2012 and

February 18, 2012, without success. (Transcript at 4:16-7:18.) However, the proofs of service indicate

that Mr. Pinon did not receive the summons until February 18, 2012. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) Although the

Court finds that this inconsistency weighs against Mr. Pinon’s credibility, in reaching its ruling the

Court need not discuss any attempts to serve Mr. Dassa prior to the actual date of service (i.e., February

20, 2012). Moreover, Mr. Pinon’s inconsistent testimony does not amount to strong and convincing

evidence that the proofs of service are invalid.

4

Plaintiff argues that “[i]t is also interesting how Defendant Dassa knows that current counsel

filed the instant case when he claims to have no copy of the complaint which would contain such

information.” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 5:16-19, ECF No. 9.) However, Mr. Dassa does not dispute that the

summons and complaint were left on his doorstep. Rather, he maintains that he retrieved the documents

later that day. Thus, the fact that Mr. Dassa is aware of the existence of the lawsuit and the identity of

Plaintiff’s counsel does not suggest that Mr. Dassa is engaged in a “pattern and practice of lying to avoid

service.” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 5:19-20.)

- 6 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 6 of 9
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

doorbell. The door is closed.

• At 8:08:08 a.m., Mr. Pinon was standing at the front door looking at his clipboard. The

door is closed.

• At 8:08:56 a.m., Mr. Pinon drops documents on the doorstep. The door is closed.

• At 8:08:57 a.m., Mr. Pinon begins to walk back to his car.

The time-stamps found on the surveillance still images are telling. They demonstrate that Mr.

Pinon stood at Mr. Dassa’s front door for at least 93 seconds. Missing, however, are any photographs

depicting what occurred between 8:07:23 a.m. and 8:08:08 a.m., and between 8:08:08 a.m. and 8:08:56

a.m. 

The Court expected that Defendant’s presentation of the actual surveillance video would clarify

what exactly happened during the critical minutes that Mr. Pinon appeared outside Mr. Dassa’s home. 

However, Defendants introduced only a small portion of the video surveillance. Specifically,

Defendants’ video only depicts the events occurring from 8:08:53 a.m. to 8:09:07 a.m. In other words,

the video only shows Mr. Pinon dropping the documents at the front door and walking back towards his

car. This video only serves to corroborate Mr. Pinon’s testimony. Missing, however, is the video

surveillance footage from the time Mr. Pinon arrived at the door (no later than 8:07:23 a.m.) and the

time he placed the documents on the doorstep approximately 90 seconds later. The fact that Defendants

omitted these 90 seconds is compelling. Had the Court been afforded an opportunity to review the entire

sequence of events, the dispute as to whose account is truthful would have been easily resolved. That

Defendants failed to introduce the evidence that they claim constitutes “conclusive evidence” that Mr.

Pinon’s proofs of service are false leads the Court to conclude that, despite any inconsistencies in Mr.

Pinon’s testimony, his testimony is more credible than Mr. Dassa’s testimony. See Errion v. Connell,

236 F.2d 447, 457 (9th Cir. 1956) (“The weight to be given to conflicting testimony [about service of

process] is within the discretion of the trial judge who, in this instance, had the parties before him.”). 

This conclusion is supported by Mr. Pinon’s statement that he was “110%” confident in his testimony

even when faced with the prospect of video surveillance (which he had never seen) potentially

portraying the entire incident. (Transcript at 8:13-22.)

/ / /

- 7 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 7 of 9
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

Mr. Dassa attempts to explain the lack of complete surveillance footage by claiming that he

never recorded the entire sequence because (1) the file size of the full video would have been too large

to email to his attorney, and (2) he never thought to maintain the entire recording. (Transcript at 43:22-

46:9.) The Court does not view these reasons as credible. First, absent any unbiased or expert

testimony substantiating Mr. Dassa’s claim that the entire video was “too big” to record onto his phone,

the Court views this claim as suspect. Second, Mr. Dassa’s claim that he did not think it was necessary

to record the entire incident because he is “not an attorney” ignores his own testimony that he called his

attorney “immediately” upon finding the legal documents on his doorstep and did not record the footage

until a day or two later. (Transcript at 27:6-7, 45:14-18, 46:4-9.) Moreover, Mr. Dassa apparently did

believe that it was important to obtain still images at the beginning and middle of Mr. Pinon’s visit, and

no credible justification was provided for why he would not also preserve the entire video. 

In conclusion, because Plaintiff has provided prima facie evidence that process was properly

served, and because Defendants have not produced strong and convincing evidence sufficient to

overcome Plaintiff’s showing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that Defendants

J&D Enterprise and Mr. Dassa were personally served on February 20, 2012.5 Accordingly, the Court

RECOMMENDS that the District Judge consider, in ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, that

Plaintiff personally served Defendants J&D Enterprise and Mr. Dassa on February 20, 2012.6

/ / /

/ / /

5

Defendants also contend that service was defective because “merely leaving court documents

at a doorstep is not sufficient for personal service as a matter of law.” (Defs.’ Reply at 4:13-15.) 

However, under the circumstances present here, leaving the summons and complaint on the doorstep

can indeed constitute valid proper service. See Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551

F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Sufficient service may be found where there is a good faith effort to

comply with the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2) which has resulted in placement of the summons and

complaint within the defendant’s immediate proximity and further compliance with Rule 4(e)(2) is only

prevented by the defendant’s knowing and intentional actions to evade service.”); Errion v. Connell, 236

F.2d 447, 457 (9th Cir. 1956) (finding proper service when sheriff threw the summons through a hole

in a screen door after defendant ducked behind the door). 

6

Defendants contend that the complaint should be dismissed under Rule 4(m) and Local Civil

Rule 41.1 for failure to prosecute this case for eleven months. However, this argument is not presently

before the Magistrate Judge and so it is not addressed in this Report and Recommendation. The Court

does note, however, that there is no record of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Joe

Willis.

- 8 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 8 of 9
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

B. Sanctions

Defendants maintain that “it is evident that Plaintiff and his counsel engaged in bad faith conduct

by causing to be filed false proofs of service.” (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 7:25-27.) Thus, Defendants

 seek to recover the sum of $7,000.7 However, as discussed above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s proofs

of service are valid. Moreover, even assuming they were not, Plaintiff and his counsel should be entitled

to rely on the sworn proofs of service of their registered process server. Defendants have failed to

demonstrate that Plaintiff or his counsel engaged in bad faith. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS

that Defendants’ request for sanctions be DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION

After a thorough review of the pleadings and evidence presented to the Court and based on the

foregoing, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS the following:

1. In ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the District Judge consider that Plaintiff

personally served Defendants J&D Enterprise and Mr. Dassa on February 20, 2012; and

2. Defendants’ request for sanctions be DENIED.

This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before June 22, 2012. The document

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed no later than June 29, 2012. The parties are further advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the

Court’s Order. See Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 141 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 8, 2012

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

7

Defendants lowered their request for sanctions to $4,200 at the time they filed their reply

because the motion to dismiss hearing had been taken off calendar. (Defs.’ Reply at 6:16-18.) 

However, at the evidentiary hearing Defendants’ counsel appeared to requesting the full $7,000 since

he had to travel to attend that hearing. (Transcript at 51:9-15.)

- 9 - 11cv911-L (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-00911-L-DHB Document 19 Filed 06/08/12 Page 9 of 9