Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00548/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00548-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

14-CV-548 JLS (KSC)

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

LYCURGAN, INC., a California 

corporation, d/b/a ARES ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARL GRIFFITH, an individual,

UNKNOWN NAMED 

TECHNOLOGIST, an individual, 

UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS I-VII, 

individuals, and DOES I-X, in their 

individual capacities,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-CV-548 JLS (KSC)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff Lycurgan, Inc. filed a complaint before this Court. 

(ECF No. 1.) Initially, Plaintiff sued Mr. B. Todd Jones, the director of the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), in his official capacity. Plaintiff

alleged that an anticipated ATF search of its businesses would violate its Fourth 

Amendment rights. The search occurred and mooted the original complaint. Plaintiff filed 

a First Amended Complaint on December 17, 2014, alleging the search violated its First, 

Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 42.) The amended Complaint 

added Mr. Earl Griffith, chief of ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch, as a defendant, but

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 165 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

14-CV-548 JLS (KSC)

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 never properly served him. It also added as defendants unknown, fictitious ATF 

agents who executed the search against Plaintiff. On November 19, 2015, the Court 

dismissed all claims against Defendant Jones without prejudice. (ECF No. 106.)

On August 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging 

constitutional violations against Mr. Griffith as well as the unnamed defendants, but did 

not name Mr. Jones. (ECF No. 109.) On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed proof of service 

as to the unnamed defendants, (ECF No. 111), and on December 7, 2016 filed proof of 

service as to Mr. Griffith, (ECF No. 112). The summons for the unnamed defendants were 

served on the U.S. Attorney General and ATF headquarters both located in Washington, 

D.C. (See, e.g., ECF No. 111-1.) On May 30, 2017, the United States, on behalf of the 

unnamed defendants, moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to serve the 

unnamed defendants within the original time for service, (ECF No. 126). 

The Court granted Defendant Griffith’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction on July 31, 2017, (ECF No. 152), but denied the United States of America’s

motion to dismiss for failure to serve on October 18, 2017, (ECF No. 153). The Court 

determined that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), good cause did not exist 

to extend service, (id. at 8–11), but the Court exercised its discretion to extend time to serve 

the unknown defendants, (id. at 11–14). The Court expressed its concern that the statute 

of limitations would bar Plaintiff’s claim if the Court were to dismiss the claims without 

prejudice. (Id. at 12.) The Court granted Plaintiff an additional ninety days in which to 

serve the unnamed defendants, (id. at 15), and even cited cases discussing how to take 

limited discovery of unknown defendants, (id. at 9 (citing Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 

1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1990))).

Plaintiff filed a motion to take limited, immediate discovery on the same day the 

order was published, October 18, 2017. (ECF No. 154.) Plaintiff withdrew its motion to 

take discovery on October 19, 2017, one day after it was filed. (ECF No. 155.) During 

this time, the parties negotiated how to identify and serve the unnamed defendants. On 

December 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a renewed ex parte motion for discovery, (ECF No. 

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 165 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

14-CV-548 JLS (KSC)

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

157), and on December 27, 2017 Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for extension of time to 

Serve, (ECF No. 158).

In response to the motion for extension of time to serve, this Court declined to 

exercise its discretion to extend, for a second time, the time to serve. (ECF No. 160.) 

Subsequently, on January 16, 2018, Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford denied as moot 

Plaintiff’s discovery motion because Plaintiff could not conduct discovery and serve the 

unnamed defendants in enough time to meet the January 16, 2018 deadline for service. 

(ECF No. 162.) On May 25, 2018, the Court issued an order to show cause why this case 

should not be dismissed for failure to serve. (ECF No. 163.) 

Plaintiff filed a response to the order stating that it has no independent means to 

obtain the identities of the unknown defendants. (ECF No. 164, at 1.) Plaintiff further 

states that unless the Court extends time for service, the Court accepts proof of service filed 

in November 2016, (ECF No. 111), or the United States accepts service on behalf of the 

unnamed defendants, then it cannot comply with the Court’s order. (Id. at 1–2.)

“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the 

defendant has been served in accordance with” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Crowley 

v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of 

Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009)). Here, Plaintiff has not served the 

individual unnamed defendants; instead, it mailed service to the U.S. Attorney General and 

ATF headquarters in hopes that the United States would accept service on behalf of the 

unnamed defendants. The United States did not do so and instead filed a motion to dismiss. 

Therefore, this Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the fictitious defendants and 

proceeds to the Rule 4(m) analysis. See Crowley, 734 F.3d at 975 (“The parties do not 

dispute that Crowley failed to serve Dr. Sussman; therefore, the district court lacked 

personal jurisdiction over Dr. Sussman and should have proceeded under Rule 4(m) to 

dismiss the complaint against Dr. Sussman without prejudice.”).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m) requires that “[i]f a defendant is not 

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

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 165 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

14-CV-548 JLS (KSC)

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

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

order that service be made within a specified time.” 

Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is 

mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a 

showing of good cause. The second is discretionary: if good 

cause is not established, the district court may extend time for 

service upon a showing of excusable neglect. Exercise of 

discretion to extend time to complete service is appropriate 

when, for example, a statute-of-limitations bar would operate to 

prevent re-filing of the action.

Crowley, 734 F.3d at 976 (quoting Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 

2009)).

This Court has determined that good cause to extend time for service does not exist. 

(ECF No. 153, at 10–11.) Generally, the Court noted that several years had passed without 

proper service. (See id. at 9.) Instead, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 4(m)’s 

second prong and extended the time to serve the unnamed defendants. See Crowley, 734 

F.3d at 976; In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Instead of pursuing discovery, Plaintiff negotiated with the United States on how 

best to move forward. The United States offered to provide the names of the unnamed 

defendants, but required that the names be filed under seal to protect their safety. (See ECF 

No. 158-1, at 5–6 (describing negotiations).) When Plaintiff refused the United States’ 

offer, it filed a new discovery request within a few weeks of the service deadline, (ECF 

No. 157), as well as a motion to extend time for service, (ECF No. 158). The Court denied 

the motion to extend time to serve, (ECF No. 160), and Magistrate Judge Crawford denied 

as moot the discovery request, (ECF No. 162). Because Plaintiff exhausted its ninety-day 

window without serving the unnamed defendants, the Court issued an order to show cause, 

constituting notice to Plaintiff under Rule 4(m). 

There is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for fictitious Doe 

Defendants. Warren v. Marcus, 78 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1239 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Fifty 

Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1970); and Columbia 

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 165 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

14-CV-548 JLS (KSC)

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

Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 803 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, 

the Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to allow a plaintiff the opportunity through 

limited discovery to identify the unknown defendants. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 

642 (9th Cir. 1980). This Court permitted Plaintiff such an opportunity, but for reasons 

discussed above Plaintiff did not proceed with discovery. The Court declines to exercise 

its discretion to further extend the time for service. The Court finds that it does not have 

personal jurisdiction over the unnamed defendants, there is no provision in the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure to proceed against fictitious defendants without serving them, and 

Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of Rule 4(m).

In sum, the only named defendants in this action, B. Todd Jones and Earl Griffith, 

are no longer parties. The unnamed defendants have not been served in accordance with 

Rule 4. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE this action in its entirety. The Clerk of Court SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2018

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 165 Filed 06/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5