Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03451/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03451-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALMON TROLLERS MARKETING

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v

CARLOS M GUTIRREZ, Secretary of

Commerce, et al,

Defendants. /

No C 06-3451 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Salmon Trollers Marketing Association (STMA)

brings this action against the Secretary of Commerce, the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), two NMFS officials and the

California Department of Fish and Game, challenging regulations

promulgated pursuant to section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (the “Magnuson-Stevens Act”), 16

USC § 1855. Doc #1 (Compl); Doc #3 (Amended Compl). STMA

petitions for expedited review and a temporary restraining order

and/or a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the

challenged regulation. Doc #5. In their opposing memoranda,

Case 3:06-cv-03451-VRW Document 11 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

federal defendants argue that the manner of service of process is

defective. The court construes the government’s objection as a

motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(5).

FRCP 4(i) spells out the requirements for serving process

upon federal agencies, corporations or officers sued in their

official capacities. First, the plaintiff must satisfy all

requirements for service upon the United States. FRCP 4(i)(1)(A)

and (B). In all cases, this means that the plaintiff must deliver

a copy of the summons and complaint via registered or certified

mail to (1) the United States attorney for the district in which

the action is brought and (2) the Attorney General of the United

States. Id. Additionally, to effect service on defendant NMFS,

the plaintiff must deliver a copy of the summons and complaint via

registered or certified mail to the federal officer, employee,

agency or corporation named as a defendant. FRCP 4(i)(2)(A).

STMA posits that “service was strictly complied with in

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Doc #10

(Reply) at 3. That, unfortunately, is clearly not the case. 

STMA’s proof of service indicates that STMA delivered copies of the

amended complaint and petition for expedited review to four of the

five named defendants. See Doc #8 (Second Lerman Decl). STMA does

not dispute that it has not served the United States attorney or

the Attorney General. See Reply at 2-3. Moreover, it is not clear

that the named defendants who were served with a copy of the

amended complaint were also served with a copy of the summons as

required by Rule 4(i).

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-03451-VRW Document 11 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Counsel for STMA does not attempt to show good cause for

excusing non-compliance with Rule 4(i). And it is unlikely counsel

could make such a showing, for “a lawyer who does not read the

rules lacks good cause.” Tuke v United States, 76 F3d 155, 157

(7th Cir 1996). 

Without citation to authority, STMA suggests that

electronic filing is a cure-all for defective service. Although

electronic filing might be an acceptable means for effectuating

service of filings after initial process has been served and the

defendant has made an appearance, electronic filing is no

substitute for initial service of process, the mechanics of which

are spelt out in some detail by Rule 4.

Finally, STMA argues that there is no question that the

federal defendants received STMA’s filings because those filings

are referenced throughout the federal defendants’ opposition. But

actual notice is no substitute for strict compliance with Rule 4. 

See, for example, Tuke, 76 F3d at 156-58.

The court understands that the Magnuson-Stevens Act

provides for expedited proceedings and that STMA seeks timely

relief. But the simple facts are that STMA failed promptly to

serve the summons and original complaint and its service of the

amended complaint is plainly defective. Thus, any exigency that

may exist is of STMA’s own creation and does not justify departure

from the clear requirements prescribed by Rule 4.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-03451-VRW Document 11 Filed 08/15/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Service is hereby QUASHED. STMA may cure defects in

service within the time limitations provided by Rule 4(m). 

Further, pursuant to Rule 4(l), the court hereby allows STMA to

amend its proof of service. The court will not address the merits

of plaintiffs’ filing unless and until plaintiff timely cures the

defects identified by this order.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03451-VRW Document 11 Filed 08/15/06 Page 4 of 4