Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01530/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01530-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE M. KASSAB, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 11cv01530 BTM (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

SET ASIDE DEFAULT, DENYING

MOTIONS TO DISMISS, AND

ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. 23), first

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24), and second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27). For the reasons set

forth herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Set Aside Default, DENIES the Motions to

Dismiss, and ORDERS Plaintiffs to serve all Defendants within 45 days of the entry of this

Order in the manner prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The Court also

ORDERS the parties to appear before the Court for a show cause hearing on Monday,

September 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m.

a. Motion to Set Aside Default

Defendants argue that Defendant United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”)

was improperly served, and that the entry of default against Defendant USDA should

1 11cv01530 BTM (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-01530-GPC-WMC Document 29 Filed 07/16/12 Page 1 of 5
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

therefore be set aside. The Court agrees, and GRANTS the Motion to Set Aside Default. 

See Mason v. Genisco Technology Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that

improper service presents good cause to set aside entries of default). The Clerk shall set

aside the default entered against Defendant USDA (Doc. 22).

b. Motions to Dismiss

The Motions to Dismiss are also based entirely on Defendants’ allegations of improper

service. In their first Motion to Dismiss, filed on December 22, 2011, Defendants claimed

that Plaintiffs had not properly served the individual defendants because Plaintiffs had served

a copy of the summons and complaint on neither the United States Attorney’s Office nor the

United States Attorney General’s Office. On February 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a certificate

of service (Doc. 26), showing that Plaintiffs served a copy of the summons and complaint on

the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. In their second

Motion to Dismiss, filed April 13, 2012, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs still had not served

a summons and complaint on the United States Attorney General’s Office. Defendants also

argued that Defendant Flowers was not properly served in her individual capacity because

Defendant Keh, the party that Plaintiffs actually served, was not authorized to receive service

for Defendant Flowers in her individual capacity. Defendants also alleged that Defendant

Wilusz never received service.

Where a plaintiff has not served a defendant within the 120-day period prescribed by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court has discretion either to “dismiss the action

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified

time.” The Court declines to dismiss this case as a result of the previous defects in Plaintiffs’

efforts to serve Defendants, and accordingly DENIES both Motions to Dismiss. The Court

ORDERS that Plaintiffs must serve all Defendants within 45 days of the entry of this Order. 

The Court further ORDERS that the parties shall appear before the Court on Monday,

September 10, at 2:00 p.m., and ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause at the September 10

2 11cv01530 BTM (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-01530-GPC-WMC Document 29 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 5
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

hearing why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service.

c. Instructions for Service

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1) sets forth the service requirements for United

States agencies, and Rule 4(i)(2) sets forth the service requirements for United States

officers and employees sued in their official capacities. Rule 4(i)(3) sets forth the service

requirements for United States officers and employees sued in their individual capacities. 

To be absolutely clear, in order to serve Defendants properly, Plaintiffs must do the

following with respect to each Defendant:

Defendant United States Department of Agriculture. Plaintiff must serve a copy of the

summons and complaint on each of the following:

1. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. This

Plaintiffs have already done (Doc. 26).

2. The United States Attorney General’s Office, by registered or certified mail. 

This Plaintiffs have not done.

3. The United States Department of Agriculture, by registered or certified mail. 

This Plaintiffs have done. (Doc. 16).

Individual defendants in their official capacities (Jocelyn J. Keh, Sylvia Flowers, Daniel

Wilusz). Plaintiff must serve a copy of the summons and complaint on each of the following:

1. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. This

Plaintiffs have already done (Doc. 26).

2. The United States Attorney General’s Office, by registered or certified mail. 

This Plaintiffs have not done.

3. Each individual defendant, by registered or certified mail. This Plaintiffs have

not done.

//

//

//

//

3 11cv01530 BTM (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-01530-GPC-WMC Document 29 Filed 07/16/12 Page 3 of 5
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

Individual Defendants sued individually (Jocelyn J. Keh, Sylvia Flowers, Daniel Wilusz). Rule

4(i)(3) requires that Plaintiffs serve the individual defendants sued individually in the manner

prescribed by either Rule 4(e) (“Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United

States”), Rule 4(f) (“Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country”), or Rule 4(g) (“Serving a

Minor or Incompetent Person”). Unless the individual Defendants are in a foreign country,

or are either minors or incompetent persons, Rule 4(e) is the applicable provision. Rule 4(e)

permits service of individuals within a judicial district in the United States by: 

(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action

brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where

the district court is located or where service is made; OR

(2) doing any of the following:

(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the

complaint to the individual personally; OR

(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling

or usual place of abode with someone who is of

suitable age and discretion who resides there; OR

(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized

by law to receive service of process.

It appears that Plaintiffs have properly served Defendant Keh in her individual capacity by

personally serving on her a copy of the summons and complaint (Doc. 15). Plaintiffs

attempted to serve Defendant Flowers by serving Defendant Keh, claiming Defendant Keh

is authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant Flowers (Doc. 17). However,

Defendant Keh is not authorized to accept service for Defendant Flowers (Keh Decl., Doc.

27-3, at ¶ 3), and thus Defendant Flowers has not been properly served. There is no

evidence in the record that Defendant Wilusz has been served. Accordingly, Plaintiffs still

must served Defendants Flowers and Wilusz in the manner prescribed above.

//

//

//

//

//

4 11cv01530 BTM (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-01530-GPC-WMC Document 29 Filed 07/16/12 Page 4 of 5
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

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Set Aside Default

(Doc. 23), DENIES the Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 24 and 27), and ORDERS Plaintiffs to

serve all Defendants within 45 days of the entry of this Order in the manner prescribed by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The Court also ORDERS the parties to appear before the

Court on Monday, September 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m.

The Clerk shall set aside the default entered against Defendant USDA (Doc. 22).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 16, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

5 11cv01530 BTM (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-01530-GPC-WMC Document 29 Filed 07/16/12 Page 5 of 5