Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02958/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02958-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 Plaintiffs Stacy McGuire and Benjamin McGuire, Sr., acting both individually and as 

18 successors in interest to their decedent son, have brought this civil rights action against 

19 defendants Stanislaus County, Stanislaus County Sheriff Jeff Dirkse, Merced County and Merced 

20 County Sheriff Vernon Warnke. Stanislaus County and Dirkse move to quash the service of 

21 summons or to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and 12(b)(5). 

22 Mot., ECF No. 14-1. The motion is fully briefed. Opp’n, ECF No. 34; Reply, ECF No. 36. The 

23 court submitted the matter without oral arguments. Min. Order, ECF No. 41. For the reasons 

24 below, the court grants the motion to quash and dismiss in part. 

25 I. DISCUSSION 

26 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), a party may move to dismiss for 

27 “insufficient service of process” under Rule 4. When service is challenged, plaintiff has the 

28 burden of establishing its validity. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). If the 

Stacy McGuire, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

County of Stanislaus, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-02958-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

Case 2:23-cv-02958-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 4
2 

1 court finds service was insufficient under Rule 4, it has “discretion to dismiss an action or to 

2 quash service.” S.J. v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 470 F.3d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir. 2006). 

3 Plaintiffs have not properly effected service. First, plaintiffs did not serve Stanislaus 

4 County or Dirkse within the 90 days prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See 

5 Compl., ECF No. 1 (filed December 18, 2023); Proofs of Service, ECF Nos. 10, 11 (served 

6 April 3, 2024). 

7 Second, plaintiffs did not properly serve Dirkse. They did not personally serve him. See

8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A) (individual may be personally served); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10 

9 (same). Rather, plaintiffs served the summons and complaint on a clerk in the Records Division 

10 of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. See Return of Services; Helton Decl. ¶¶ 8–10, 

11 ECF No. 32 (process server); Walker Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 33. Plaintiffs cannot rely solely on the 

12 record clerk’s statement “she was authorized to accept service.” Opp’n at 6; Helton Decl. ¶¶ 8–9. 

13 “[A]n agent’s assertion that they are authorized to accept service, without more, is insufficient to 

14 establish actual or ostensible authority to accept service on behalf of a principal.” White v. San 

15 Bernardino Cnty. Superintendent of Sch., No. 19-2177, 2020 WL 2303100, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 

16 Jan. 21, 2020) (collecting authority). Plaintiffs have not shown the records clerk was authorized 

17 by appointment or law to accept service on Dirkse’s behalf. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(C) 

18 (service by delivery to authorized agent permissible). 

19 Third, plaintiffs did not properly serve the County. The records clerk was neither the 

20 chief executive officer, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2)(A), nor one of the people listed in the 

21 applicable California law, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.50(a). 

22 Finally, plaintiffs did not effect substituted service under the California rules of procedure. 

23 No evidence shows plaintiffs mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to either Dirkse or the 

24 County, as required by state law. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(a), (b); see, e.g., Flowers v. 

Crawford, No. D078670, 2022 WL 14725216, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2022) (unpublished)1 25 

26 (“Without the mailing, service of the summons is not deemed complete.”). 

1

 Although the California Rules of Court would prohibit the citation of this unpublished 

decision in a state court, those rules do not apply in federal courts, which may review and 

Case 2:23-cv-02958-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 4
3 

1 Because plaintiffs did not properly serve defendants, the court grants the motion to 

2 quash. However, the court exercises its discretion not to dismiss the case. See Stevens v. Sec. 

3 Pac. Nat. Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1976) (recognizing this discretion). “[D]ismissal 

4 of a complaint is inappropriate when there exists a reasonable prospect that service may yet be 

5 obtained,” as in this case. Azzawi v. Brown, No. 15-01468, 2015 WL 6460363, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

6 Oct. 26, 2015) (collecting authority); see also, e.g., Crayton v. Rochester Med. Corp., 

7 No. 07-01318, 2008 WL 3367604, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2008) (quashing service but denying 

8 motion to dismiss). 

9 As noted, the deadline for plaintiffs to complete service has passed. The court must 

10 extend that deadline if plaintiffs show good cause. See Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 

11 1198 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). Even without good cause, the court may also 

12 extend the deadline “upon a showing of excusable neglect.” Id. In addition, courts may require a 

13 plaintiff to show “(a) the party to be served personally received actual notice of the lawsuit; 

14 (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his 

15 complaint were dismissed.” Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation 

16 omitted); see also Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (“In making extension 

17 decisions under Rule 4(m) a district court may consider factors ‘like a statute of limitations bar, 

18 prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service’”). 

19 Here, defendants have received actual notice of the complaint, as demonstrated by their 

20 retention of counsel and filing of the pending motion. Cf. United Food & Com. Workers Union v. 

21 Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should be 

22 liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice of the complaint.”). Defendants 

23 have not shown prejudice; nor do they argue they will suffer any prejudice. See, e.g., id. (finding 

24 “district court was correct in holding that dismissal for insufficiency of process was not justified” 

25 when defendant “failed to present any evidence suggesting that it was prejudiced in the least by 

26 the minor defect in the summons”). Plaintiffs have demonstrated prejudice, as the statute of 

consider unpublished appellate decisions for their persuasive (but not precedential) value. See 

Nunez by Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935, 943 n.4 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 2:23-cv-02958-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 07/11/24 Page 3 of 4
4 

1 limitations has run. See Opp’n at 6–7; see, e.g., Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198 (“Exercise of 

2 discretion to extend time to complete service is appropriate when, for example, a statute-of3 limitations bar would operate to prevent re-filing of the action.”). Plaintiffs also have shown 

4 excusable neglect. They relied on the County Counsel and County Sheriff’s Department’s 

5 representation that the “Records Division” would accept service, Walker Decl. ¶¶ 5–9, and as 

6 summarized above, a records clerk told the process server she was authorized to accept service 

7 for both defendants, Helton Decl. ¶¶ 5–9. 

8 Accordingly, the court denies defendants’ motion to the extent they request dismissal. 

9 The court grants plaintiffs thirty days to complete service on Dirkse and Stanislaus County. 

10 II. CONCLUSION 

11 The motion to quash service of summons is granted, but the motion to dismiss for 

12 ineffective service of process is denied. Plaintiffs shall have thirty days from the filed date of 

13 this order to effect proper service on Dirkse and Stanislaus County. 

14 This order resolves ECF No. 14. 

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

16 DATED: July 11, 2024. 

17 

Case 2:23-cv-02958-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 07/11/24 Page 4 of 4