Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01415/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01415-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

Cynthia Ann Salter, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Recontrust Company, N.A., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-1415-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

(Doc. 46) and Motion to Quash Service of Summons. (Doc. 47.) In Plaintiff’s second

amended complaint, she named Angelo Mazilo, R.K. Arnold, Brian T. Moynihan, James

F. Taylor, and Mike Williams as defendants. (Doc. 40.) Although Plaintiff purported to

file claims against these defendants in both their official and individual capacities, there is

no such relevant legal distinction for private parties. Accordingly, service of these

defendants must comply with the rules for proper service of individuals under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4. The Court previously explained in its October 5, 2010 order (Doc. 45) that

Plaintiff’s attempts to serve these individual defendants were insufficient, as the certified

mailing receipts Plaintiff provided indicating that she mailed copies of the complaint to

the individual defendants’ places (or former places) of business do not satisfy the

requirements for service of process on an individual. Plaintiff must name the

corporations or entities themselves as parties if she wishes to pursue claims for actions

Case 2:09-cv-01415-NVW Document 52 Filed 11/22/10 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 -

undertaken by that corporation or entity. Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of

Summons (Doc. 47) is thus appropriately granted.

Because Plaintiff has not shown proper service as required by Rule 4, her case

warrants dismissal for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). If the only

failing in Plaintiff’s complaint were her failure to name the proper parties as defendants

and show proper service on them, the Court would grant Plaintiff leave to file a third

amended complaint. However, Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to state a claim for which

relief could be granted. “If a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, leave to

amend should be granted unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts

consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” DeSoto

v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). 

Because Plaintiff has not alleged any action by the individual defendants which caused

her injury and does not seek any relief from the individual defendants, and because her

claims fail for the other reasons stated in Defendants’ motion (Doc. 46), it would be futile

to allow amendment of her complaint against the individual defendants. Accordingly,

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 46) will be granted

with prejudice. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of

Summons (Doc. 47) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 46) is granted. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shall

be dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk shall terminate this action.

 DATED this 22nd day of November, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01415-NVW Document 52 Filed 11/22/10 Page 2 of 2