Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reginald Haywood, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jeff Bedatsky, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2179-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Eugene Almer has filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. #182. Plaintiff

Haywood seeks a default judgment against Defendant Almer. Dkt. #187. The Court will

grant Defendant Almer’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion. 

“A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has

been served properly[.]” Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840

F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir.

1982)). Service requires delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendant personally,

to the defendant’s authorized agent, or to a person of suitable age and discretion residing at

the defendant’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e); see also Ariz.

R. Civ. P. 4.1(d). In this case, the United States Marshals, acting on information provided

by Plaintiff, delivered the summons and complaint to Ms. Ayala, a secretary at Defendant

Almer’s place of business. Plaintiff claims that this was sufficient service under Rule 4. The

Court does not agree.

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 192 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendant’s place of employment is not

sufficient. Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1987) (“We require

‘substantial compliance with Rule 4’ [which] has generally been construed to mean that

service at a defendant’s place of employment is insufficient.”) (quoting Jackson, 682 F.2d

at 1347); Direct Mail, 840 F.2d at 688 (“[W]ithout substantial compliance with Rule 4

‘neither actual notice nor simply naming the defendant in the complaint will provide personal

jurisdiction.’”) (citation omitted). 

Service of process on an agent is sufficient only if the agent is “authorized by

appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2); Pochiro v.

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 827 F.2d 1246, 1248-49 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that service on

person’s attorney would be ineffective unless attorney had actual authority to accept service)

(citing Kalakosky v. Collins, 609 P.2d 596, 597 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980) and Sloan v. FloridaVanderbilt Dev. Corp., 529 P.2d 726, 729 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974)). Defendant Almer has

provided an affidavit stating that Ms. Ayala was not his agent for service of process.

Dkt. #182. Plaintiff presents no evidence to the contrary.

The Court concludes that Defendant Almer has not been served properly and is

entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5). Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment

will therefore be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Almer’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #182) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff Haywood’s motion for entry of default (Dkt. #187) is denied. 

DATED this 10th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 192 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 2