Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01079/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01079-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

08cv1079

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTRELLA COSTALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICA’S SERVICING CO., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1079-L(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART AMERICA’S

SERVICING COMPANY’S AND

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICES’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS (doc. no. 7 &

11) AND EXTENDING TIME FOR

PLAINTIFF TO PROPERLY SERVE

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Estrella Costales, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to the Truth in

Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. against three Defendants: (1) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

dba America’s Servicing Company, which was named as America’s Servicing Co. (“America’s

Servicing”); (2) Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, erroneously named as Specialized Loan

Services (“Specialized”); and (3) Loan Center of California. America’s Servicing and

Specialized each filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

Plaintiff did not oppose the motions. For the reasons which follow, the motions are GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and Plaintiff is granted an extension of time to properly

serve Defendants.

Plaintiff filed a Certificate of Service indicating that the complaint “has been furnished”

to Defendants. The certificate is insufficient as proof of service of summons for several reasons. 

Case 3:08-cv-01079-L-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/05/09 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 08cv1079

First, it does not appear that a summons was served together with the complaint as required by

Rule 4(c)(1). Second, contrary to the requirement of Rule 4(c)(2), it appears that service was

accomplished by Plaintiff herself. Last, the certificate does not state the manner in which the

complaint was “furnished” to Defendants so as to show that the service complied with Rule 4(h). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Certificate of Service does not comply with the requirements of Rule 4.

Plaintiff apparently accompanied the service with a Proof of Mailing and Contents

Mailed, which Plaintiff did not file with the court. (See Request for Judicial Notice in Support

of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., dba America’s Servicing Company’s Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1.) 

This document is in the form of a server’s affidavit, and indicates that Plaintiff retained a third

party server to mail the summons and the complaint by certified mail. 

Because Defendants are business entities, Rule 4(h) governs the manner of service. It

provides that such defendants must be served 

by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a

managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by

law to receive service of process and – if the agent is one authorized by statute and

the statute so requires – by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(h)(1)(B). Plaintiff did not comply with this requirement because she did not

deliver any documents to Defendants’ officers or agents as required. 

In the alternative, Rule 4(h) allows for service by 

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.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(h)(1)(A) & (e)(1). Under California law, service by mail is sufficient as

specified by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 415.30. The summons and the

complaint must be served together with a Notice and a form for Acknowledgment of Receipt of

Summons. The notice must state that service is provided under section 415.30, and that failure

to complete the acknowledgment form and return it within 20 days may subject the defendant to

liability for the cost of service by other means. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30(b). Service by

this method is deemed complete on the date the acknowledgment is signed by the defendant. Id.

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-01079-L-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/05/09 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 08cv1079

§ 415.30(c). Because Plaintiff’s service by mail did not comply with these requirements, it was

insufficient. 

Accordingly, America’s Servicing’s and Specialized’s motions are granted to the extent

they are based on Rule 12(b)(5) and assert failure to properly serve. To the extent their motions

are based on Rule 12(b)(6) and assert failure to state a claim, they are denied without prejudice

as premature. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. dba America’s Servicing Company’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2. Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

3. Plaintiff’s defective service of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. dba America’s Servicing

Company and Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC is hereby QUASHED.

4. Plaintiff’s time to serve Defendants under Rule 4(m) is extended. No later than 60

days after this order is stamped filed, Plaintiff shall file a proof of service as required by Rule 4

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01079-L-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/05/09 Page 3 of 3