Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00796/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00796-3/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 1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-00796 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD DALE HAGEDORN, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MARTA DIAZ, et al.

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-00796 JF

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS AND DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE OF

PROCESS

On August 18, 2006, this Court issued an order (“August 18 Order”) conditionally

denying the motions of all Defendants seeking dismissal for failure to effect service of process;

the order was conditioned upon (1) Plaintiffs’ personal service of the summons and complaint

upon each defendant by August 31, 2006 and (2) Plaintiff’s filing of proof of service by

September 5, 2006. At the hearing, the Court explained that the “summons” is a document

separate from the complaint that is issued by the Court, and that in order to be effective, each

defendant must be served with the summons as well as the complaint. 

Case 5:06-cv-00796-JF Document 70 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-00796 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC2)

On August 25, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an “AFFIDAVIT of SERVICE” stating that they

were “holding FIRM” in their belief that they previously had effected proper service upon all

Defendants by mailing their “Complaint and Summon” to those Defendants. Plaintiffs stated,

however, that they would use a “legal processing service” to re-serve Defendants. On September

1, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a “NOTICE of SERVICE” again contending that Plaintiffs’ original

mailing on February 6, 2006 was sufficient to effect service of process. Plaintiffs stated that in

an abundance of caution they had an independent process server personally serve Defendants

with a copy of the “Original Complaint & Summon” dated February 6, 2006, a copy of Plaintiffs’

“Affidavit of Service,” and a copy of David Silberman’s Letter dated February 13, 2006. 

Plaintiffs submitted a proof of personal service of these documents.

On September 8, 2006, Defendants filed requests that the action be dismissed for failure

to effect service of process. The Court has reviewed the file and the docket. There is no

documentary evidence that an official summons ever has been issued in this case or that a proper

return of service has been filed. The Court informed Plaintiffs at the hearing that the summons is

a particular document that is issued by the Clerk’s Office and that must be served with the

complaint in order to effect proper service of process. The Court stated expressly in its August

18 Order that the documents Plaintiffs previously had served did not appear to include an official

summons. Accordingly, personal service of these documents did not cure the defect. The Court

has afforded Plaintiff ample opportunity to obtain a summons and effect proper service of

process as to each defendant. Plaintiffs have failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss

the action against all Defendants for failure to effect service of process.

ORDER

The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all Defendants for failure to

effect service of process. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

DATED: September 25, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00796-JF Document 70 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C 06-00796 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Linda Lee Hagedorn & Richard Dale Hagedorn

650 Castro Street #120-467

Mountain View, CA 94041

David A. Silberman

San Mateo County Counsel's Office

400 County Center, 6th Floor

Redwood City, CA 94063

David Sheuerman

Sheuerman, Martini & Tabari

1033 Willow Street

San Jose, CA 95125

Case 5:06-cv-00796-JF Document 70 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 3