Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01052/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01052-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332oc Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

DR. RACQUEL S. BOVIER, c/o 

EPIPHANY ONEPOINTE 

TELETHERAPY & ASSOC., LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIDGEPOINT 

EDUCATION/ASHFORD 

UNIVERSITY, BRIDGEPOINT 

UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BOARD 

OF REGENTS, DR. CRAIG MAXWELL, 

DR. ANTHONY “TONY” FARRELL, 

DR. DENISE MAXWELL, MR. JOHN 

GOODISON, DR. IRIS LAFFERTY, DR. 

TAMECCA FITZPATRICK, DR. JUDY 

DONOVAN, DR. JACKIE KYGER, MS. 

HEATHER MASON, DR. ALAN 

BELCHER, MR. ARMONDO 

DOMINGUEZ & ASSOC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF 

SUMMONS 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT 

[ECF Nos. 7, 14.]

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 21 Filed 10/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

Before the Court are: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons and 

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. On August 24, 2017, Defendants 

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Anthony Farrell, Denise Maxwell, Iris Lafferty, Tamecca 

Fitzpatrick, Judy Donovan, Jackie Kyger, Heather Mason, Alan Belcher, and Armando 

Dominguez (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons 

and First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 7. On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff Dr. 

Racquel S. Bovier (“Plaintiff”), filed a “Motion for Default Judgment to Proceed for Full 

Relief in Lieu of Forteiture [sic] for Failure to Timely Reply Original Complaint,” which 

the Court construed as a Response to Defendants’ Motion to Quash. Dkt. Nos. 9-10. On 

September 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Court Response Memo: Notice of Opposition & 

Rejection to Defendant’s Quash With Request of Dismissal of Hearing With Enclosed 

Formal Motion to Vacate Quash,” which the Court construed as a supplemental 

opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Quash. Dkt Nos. 11-12. Finally, Plaintiff further 

filed a “Motion for Default Judgment to Proceed for Full Relief in Lieu of Forteiture [sic] 

for Failure to Timely Reply Original Complaint” which the Court construed as a Motion 

for Default Judgment. Dkt Nos. 13-14. On October 4, 2017, Defendants filed a reply to 

the motion to quash that also serves as their opposition to the motion for default 

judgment. Dkt. No. 17.

Having reviewed the moving papers, and the applicable law, the Court will 

GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Quash for Service of Summons and DENY Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Default Judgment. Further, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing 

scheduled for this matter on November 9, 2017 at 1:30 PM. 

I. Motion to Quash for Service of Summons

A Rule 12(b)(5) motion is the proper vehicle for challenging the “insufficiency of 

service of process.” See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(5). This serves to challenge the validity 

of the actual method or manner of service of process. Objections to the validity of 

service of process must be specific and must point out in what manner the plaintiff has 

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 21 Filed 10/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

failed to satisfy the requirements for proper service. See O'Brien v. R.J. O'Brien & 

Assocs., 998 F.2d 1394, 1400 (7th Cir.1993). 

Once service of process is properly challenged, “the party on whose behalf 

[service] is made must bear the burden of establishing its validity.” Aetna Business 

Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th 

Cir.1981); see Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). While a district 

court should indeed give the service requirements of Rule 4 a liberal and flexible 

construction, a district court also has broad discretion to either dismiss an action entirely 

for failure to effect service or to quash the defective service and permit reservice. See Duran v. Macias-Price, No. 07-cv-01209-AWI-SMS, 2007 WL 4554390, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2007); Jones v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 26 Fed.

App’x. 740, 742 n.7 (9th Cir. 2002).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) applies with regard to the defendants in this 

case. Rule 4(e) states in relevant part that service may be effected (1) “pursuant to the 

law of the state in which the district court is located . . .;” or (2) by delivering a copy of 

the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally. California law, the law 

of the state in which this Court sits, allows a plaintiff to serve a defendant by, among 

other means, mailing a copy of the summons and complaint “together with two copies of 

the notice and acknowledgment provided for in subdivision (b) and a return envelope, 

postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.30. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not serve them through means permitted by 

federal law (personal or substitute service)1 or through California law (service by mail). 

Here, Plaintiff served Defendants by overnight mail. Murillo Decl. ¶¶ 3,5. Defendants 

 

1 Plaintiff asserts that Bridgepoint made legal process “illegally challenging” by disallowing service by 

“manual process service” of summons because Bridgepoint’s employed corporate security allegedly 

would not accept service. Dkt No. 14 at 3. Defendants assert that there is no evidence that Plaintiff’s 

process server ever attempted personal service on Defendants at the Bridgepoint office. See Rico Decl., 

¶ 3. As Plaintiff has presented no evidence that she attempted personal service, the Court will deny 

Plaintiff’s request to accept Plaintiff’s deficient service of process on this basis. 

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 21 Filed 10/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

contend that Plaintiff failed to comply with the rules of California Code of Civil 

Procedure Section 415.30 by omitting a copy of the summons and complaint with two 

copies of the notice and acknowledgment form and a return envelope. See Murillo Decl. 

¶ 6. Nothing in plaintiff’s oppositions or motion for default judgment demonstrates 

compliance with the state statute. For example, Plaintiff appears to assert that a 

“certifying acceptance official, W. Felton” signed postal return receipts. Dkt. No. 10 at 3. 

A postal return receipt is not a substitute for an executed acknowledgment of return of 

summons. Shaw v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, No. CV14-00783MMMMRWx, 

2014 WL 12587033, at*2 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2014). Accordingly, the Court will quash 

Plaintiff’s service of summons for failure to strictly comply with the notice and 

acknowledgment and return envelope requirements of Section 415.30. See Duran, 2007

WL 4554390, at *1. The Court will afford Plaintiff another opportunity to serve 

defendants correctly. 

Defendants further contend that service was insufficient because Plaintiff did not 

serve a copy of the summons and first amended complaint on an appropriate individual 

on behalf of the corporation pursuant to Section 416.10 of the California Code of Civil 

Procedure. Under California law, when service is made on a corporation, the documents 

must be delivered to the person designated as the agent for service of process or the 

“president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a 

secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief 

financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive 

service of process.” Section 415.30 requires that the documents be mailed to the “person 

to be served.” Cal Civ. Proc Code § 415.30(a). California courts have stated in reference 

to analogous provisions that “person to be served” are words of precision. See Ramos v. 

Homeward Residential, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1434, 1442 (2002). Where a summons 

fails to identify the individual to be served, service is defective. Id. The Court concludes 

that Defendants’ service was also deficient because: (1) the individual defendants do not 

appear to be authorized by statute or by Bridgepoint Education to accept service of 

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 21 Filed 10/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

process; (2) the individual Defendants’ roles do not qualify them to accept service of 

process under section 416.10. See Murrillo Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8. 

Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Quash. Plaintiff is 

directed to re-serve Defendants and in particular should heed the statutory guidelines 

requiring (1) two copies of the notice and acknowledgment form and a prepaid envelope

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 415.30 and (2) service to an 

appropriate individual at Bridgepoint Education pursuant to California Code of Civil 

Procedure Section 416.10.

II. Motion for Default Judgment

Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment and impose sanctions 

against Defendants for an alleged untimely response.2 Dkt. No. 14. Under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 55 before the court may enter default judgment, the clerk must first 

enter a default against Defendants. An entry of default is appropriate “[w]hen a party 

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise 

defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

Here, no entry of default has been entered, nor is an entry of default warranted 

because Defendants have timely defended their case. Under Rule 12, a defendant must 

serve an answer “within 21 days of being served with a summons and complaint” or may 

file a motion under Rule 12(b) in lieu of an Answer. Defendants received the first 

amended complaint and summons on August 3, 2017, and accordingly—assuming they 

had been properly served—had until August 24, 2017 to file a responsive answer or Rule 

12(b) motion. See Murrilo Decl. ¶ 3. Defendants filed their motion to quash on August 

24, 2017, thereby timely responding to Plaintiff’s summons. Dkt No. 7. 

 

2 Plaintiff appears to rely on the Civil Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central 

District of California to make her request. As this Court is located in the Southern District, the Civil 

Local Rules of the Southern District of California govern. Furthermore, the operative issue–-a motion 

for default judgment–-is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55. 

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 21 Filed 10/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

Plaintiff further argues based on Central District Local Rule 7-13 that Defendants 

be sanctioned for their late filing. Dkt No. 14 at 3. Because there is no late filing, there is 

accordingly no basis for any sanctions under any rule.

3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and 

DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to 

Quash Service of Summons. Plaintiff is directed to properly serve Defendants within 30 

days after this order is docketed. Plaintiff is directed to take note that failure to properly 

serve the Defendants by the Court’s deadline may result in dismissal of her lawsuit for 

failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Further, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Default Judgment. The Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for 

this matter on November 9, 2017 at 1:30 PM. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2017

 

3 The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a Court-Ordered mediation conference as Defendants 

have not yet been properly served with a summons and first amended complaint. 

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 21 Filed 10/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6