Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08449/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08449-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DOMINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-08449-HSG 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

SERVE OR TO PROVIDE LOCATION 

OF UNSERVED DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 30, 2019.

Dkt. No. 1. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and ordered the United States Marshal to issue summons and serve the amended complaint upon 

defendants. See Dkt. No. 12. On May 4, 2020, the United States Marshals Service filed an 

executed summons, indicating that Jomel Garchitoerta, a manager at the Taco Bell and Kentucky 

Fried Chicken restaurants located at 691 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, had accepted the 

summons and service. Dkt. No. 25. However, Mr. Garchitoterta may not accept service on behalf 

of defendants who are corporate entities. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) allows for service of a corporation, partnership, or 

association “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. P. 4(h)(1)(B). Rule 4 also allows a corporation to 

be served “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general 

jurisdiction, where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(h)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). California law allows for service upon a corporation by 

delivering a copy of the summons and complaint “[t]o the person designated as agent for service 

Case 4:19-cv-08449-HSG Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of process;” or “[t]o the president or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or 

assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a general manager, or a person authorized by 

the corporation to receive service of process.” See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10. An 

unincorporated association similarly may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and 

complaint “to the person designated as agent for service of process in a statement filed with the 

Secretary of State.” See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.40. California law also allows for substitute 

service on corporations and other entities as follows:

leav[e] a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office 

hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or 

her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service 

post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, 

and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by 

first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place 

where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a). Alternatively, California law provides for service by mail. See

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30. However, service is only complete under this section once “a 

written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is executed, if such acknowledgment thereafter is 

returned to the sender.” Id. Accordingly, because Mr. Garchitoterta’s receipt does not satisfy the 

requirements noted above, neither defendant Taco Bell nor defendant KFC has been served.

Although a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on service by the Marshal, it is 

ultimately the plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the Marshal with the correct information to 

effect service. See, e.g., Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). Absent a 

showing of “good cause,” a complaint pending for over 90 days is subject to dismissal without 

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the 

Marshal to effect service upon Defendants Taco Bell and KFC. Consequently, plaintiff must 

remedy the situation or face dismissal of his claims against both defendants without prejudice.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:19-cv-08449-HSG Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, within sixty (60) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff must effect 

service on defendants Taco Bell and KFC, or submit to the Court sufficient information to such 

that the Marshal is able to effect service. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of defendants 

Taco Bell and KFC without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/12/2020

Case 4:19-cv-08449-HSG Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 3