Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS

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

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC., et 

al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 

WAIVERS OF SERVICE OF 

PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

[ECF No. 6.]

On September 4, 2018, pro se Plaintiffs Sara Elizabeth Siegler and Ohio sole 

proprietorship number 2029865 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), requested this Court to effect 

service of process on three defendants—Prospect Chartercare RWMC LLC, Steven C. 

Katz, and the Board of Directors of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, the “nonwaiving Defendants”). (ECF No. 6.) According to Plaintiffs, requests for waiver of 

service of process were sent to all defendants in the above-captioned matter on July 28, 

2018, and followed-up by hard copies mailed out on July 29, 2018. Seven defendants 

timely waived service, but the remaining three—i.e., the non-waiving Defendants, did not

do so. It is on this basis that Plaintiffs seek to have the Court order service on the nonwaiving Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 10 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS

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

Plaintiffs articulated their request in a document titled “Waivers of Service of 

Process and Request for Service of Process.” (Id.) Although the document was out of 

compliance with local rules governing ex parte motions, Civil Local Rule 83.3(g)(2), and 

rules requiring a notice of motion accompanied by a Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities in support, id. 7.1(f)(1), the Court has accepted the document as a 

discrepancy (ECF No. 5), in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and to permit the Clerk to 

file the attached waivers of service returned executed to the docket. (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9.)

To the extent, however, that Plaintiffs intended ECF entry #6 to serve as a motion 

to request the Court to effect service on the non-waiving Defendants, the Court will not 

grant the request. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) provides that “[a]t the plaintiff’s request, 

the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or 

by a person specially appointed by the court.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3). The rule states 

that “[t]he court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis,” 

or “as a seaman,” but otherwise, barring those two scenarios, a court’s decision to order 

service on behalf of a plaintiff is discretionary. Id.; see also Yates v. Baldwin, 633 F.3d 

669, 672 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting that the election to order service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(c)(3) is discretionary with the court). 

Plaintiffs are neither seamen nor proceeding in forma pauperis. As such, the 

Court’s determination with respect to Rule 4(c)(3) is discretionary. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure place the primary burden of effecting service 

on the plaintiff, not the Court. Rule 4(c)(1) states that, “In General . . . . The plaintiff is 

responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by 

Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.” The 

plaintiff might, at his or her election, request a waiver of service from the defendant 

pursuant to Rule 4(d)(1). At that point, the defendant could execute a waiver, or he or 

she might insist on service. Under Rule 4(d)(2), a defendant who refuses to sign and 

return a request for waiver without good cause could be ordered to pay the plaintiff (1) 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 10 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS

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

expenses incurred in making service and (2) reasonable expenses, including attorney’s 

fees, of any motion required to collect those service expenses. 

However, just because a defendant refuses to waive service does not mean that the 

Court is then obligated to direct the US marshal, or a specially-appointed individual, to 

effectuate service on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court has not received any indication 

that Plaintiffs would encounter resistance to service—as opposed to resistance to a 

request for waiver of service—if Plaintiffs were to attempt to carry out service with 

respect to the non-waiving Defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds that the proper 

recourse for Plaintiffs is to carry out service pursuant to Rule 4(c)(1) and then to seek 

costs pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2). 

Because Plaintiffs bear primary responsibility for effecting service, and because 

they have not shown why they cannot effectuate service themselves, the Court will 

decline to exercise its discretion to order service upon the non-waiving Defendants. 

Plaintiffs’ request is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs are advised to effectuate service on 

their own behalf, and according to the time limits specified in Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 17, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 10 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3