Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01519/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01519-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

1

19cv1519 GPC(AHG)

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

JOSEPH DANG d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF 

JOSEPH DANG, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID PONTIER, an individual; 

TEOCO Corporation Group Benefit Plan, 

a self funded group health plan; TEOCO 

Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; 

UMR Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Glenn 

C. Nusbaum, an individual; Paul E. Kim, 

MD Inc., a California corporation; Kevin 

Yoo, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv1519 GPC(AHG)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

PONTIER’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

FOR FAILURE TO SERVE

COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS

[Dkt. No. 6.]

Before the Court is Defendant David Pontier’s motion to dismiss the complaint for 

failure to serve the complaint and summons. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff Joseph Dang filed an 

opposition. (Dkt. No. 25.) No reply was filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court 

DENIES David Pontier’s motion to dismiss.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01519-LL-DDL Document 39 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv1519 GPC(AHG)

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

Background

On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff Joseph Dang d/b/a/ Law Office of Joseph Dang

(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in interpleader, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335, against 

Defendants David Pontier (“Pontier”), TEOCO Corporation Group Benefit Plan, TEOCO 

Corporation as Plan Sponsor, UMR Inc., Glenn Nusbaum, D.C., Paul E. Kim, MD and 

Kevin Yoo, M.D. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) Plaintiff is in possession of $32,764.62 in the 

name of David Pontier, a former client, representing funds remaining from a personal 

injury settlement. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 13.) All Defendants have made conflicting demands upon 

Plaintiff for the funds. (Id. ¶¶ 15-20.) On August 22, 2019, an order for interpleader 

deposit was filed and $32,764.62 was deposited into the Court’s Interest BearingRegistry Account and invested in the Court Registry Investment System. (Dkt. No. 4.) 

On January 3, 2020, Defendant Pontier, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to 

dismiss for failure to serve the complaint and summons. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff filed an 

opposition. (Dkt. No. 25.) 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m), provides that if “a defendant is not 

served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after 

notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or 

order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause 

for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 4(m). “District courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under 

Rule 4(m).” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). With the 1993 

amendments to the Rules, “courts have been accorded discretion to enlarge the [time]

period ‘even if there is no good cause shown.’” Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 

654, 662 (1996). In deciding whether to extend time to serve under Rule 4(m), the court 

may consider factors “like a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual 

notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.” Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(quoting Troxell v. Fedders of N. Am., Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)). 

Case 3:19-cv-01519-LL-DDL Document 39 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv1519 GPC(AHG)

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 does not deny that Pontier was served 66 days late and filed an affidavit of 

service indicating that Pontier was served on January 11, 2020, (Dkt. No. 24), and admits 

there was no good cause. But Plaintiff claims that Pontier is not prejudiced because he 

had notice of the complaint around October 29, 2019, when Plaintiff mailed him a letter 

informing him that the interpleader case was filed and that the funds were deposited with 

the Court. (Dkt. No. 6 at 3

1

.) In fact, Pontier filed a motion to dismiss before he was 

served indicating he had notice of the complaint. Finally, Plaintiff argues that even if the 

Court were to grant dismissal, the case would be refiled and served again. 

Because Pontier was served with the complaint and summons, albeit 66 days late, 

had notice about the lawsuit in October 2019, and no prejudice or statute of limitations

bar has been shown, the Court exercises its broad discretion and enlarges the time period 

beyond the 90-day period. Thus, the Court DENIES Pontier’s motion to dismiss for 

failing to serve the complaint and summons.2 

/ / /

/ / / 

/ / /

 

1 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 

2 The Court notes that attached to Pontier’s motion to dismiss for failure to serve complaint and 

summons include “motions” entitled “Interpleader Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations”, “Request 

for Return of Person Property $32,764.62”, “Request for Sanctions”; “Request for Attorney Fees and 

Costs”, “Interpleader Claims Non Existent”, and “Summary of Facts” that the Court will not address 

because Pontier did not obtain a hearing date as required by the Southern District of California Local 

Rules. Moreover, the Court notes that Pontier has attempted to file numerous other motions that have 

been rejected on discrepancies for failing to obtain a hearing date from the court. (Dkt. Nos. 10-14, 16, 

17, 26, 34, 35.) The Court DIRECTS Pontier to the Southern District of California Local Rules that can 

be found on the Court’s website at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/rules/local-rules.aspx. Unless 

otherwise ordered by the judge, “[a]ll hearing dates for any matters on which a ruling is required must 

be obtained from the clerk of the judge to whom the case is assigned.” Local Civ. R. 7.1(a), (b). The 

Court allowed the filing and briefing of the instant motion as it did not involve an issue concerning a 

factual dispute and there was a sufficient basis to grant dismissal as no proof of service had been filed 

with the Court. Moreover, due to the filing of the motion on January 3, 2020, Pontier was promptly 

served on January 11, 2020. In order for the Court to consider any further motions by Pontier, he

is directed to comply with the Local Civil Rules and to contact chambers to obtain a hearing date 

if he seeks to file a motion with the Court. 

Case 3:19-cv-01519-LL-DDL Document 39 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv1519 GPC(AHG)

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

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Pontier’s motion to dismiss for failing to 

serve complaint and summons. The hearing date set on February 28, 2020 shall be 

vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 28, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01519-LL-DDL Document 39 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4