Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01886/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01886-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1 10CV1886

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED BANKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACS EDUCATION CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv1886 AJB (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

QUASH; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT

JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC;

AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 168 and 175]

The Defendant, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC (hereinafter “Jefferson Capital”) filed a motion

to quash pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5). The Plaintiff filed an

opposition, Doc. No. 173, and the Defendant filed a Reply, Doc. No. 171. The hearing on Defendant’s

motion, set for July 15, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Battaglia, is hereby vacated as this motion is

appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s motion to quash is hereby GRANTED and the

Plaintiff’s claims as to Jefferson Capital set forth in the First Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 88, are

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with LEAVE TO AMEND.

Background

On September 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights.

[Doc. No. 1]. On February 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as a RICO claim. [Doc. No. 88]. On March 2, 2011,

Case 3:10-cv-01886-GPC-MDD Document 178 Filed 07/13/11 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Rule 4(e)(1) provides that unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual may serve

another in the United States by following the 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. In this case, defendant Jefferson is located in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

2 10CV1886

the Court ordered Plaintiff to effectuate proper service on any defendant not previously served within 60

days [Doc. No. 100]. On May 24, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to the Plaintiff to

appear on June 7, 2011 before Judge Battaglia and show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss

his case against any Defendant not properly served in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Court’s March 2, 2011 Order. At the hearing, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate

that he had effectuated proper service with regard to several Defendants and the Court dismissed those

Defendants without prejudice for want of prosecution. [Doc. No. 167].

Discussion

In the instant motion, Jefferson Capital moves to quash pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure Rule 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) on the grounds that Plaintiff’s service of process is defective

because: 1) the Plaintiff never served Defendant with the Summons and Complaint in this matter (either

with respect to the original complaint, or the First Amended Complaint); and 2) the Plaintiff has not

filed a proof of service as to this Defendant. While the Plaintiff contends that he has had conversations

with Defendant regarding Defendant’s need for additional time to respond to the FAC and the possible

settlement of this case, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has in fact properly served this

Defendant and has failed to file proof of service.

As the Court explained to the Plaintiff at the hearing on the Order to Show Cause, this Court

cannot exercise jurisdiction over a defendant without proper service of process pursuant to Rule 4. The

Defendant has now challenged Plaintiff’s service of process on two grounds, the first attacking the form

of the proof of service and the second challenging the manner in which service was attempted. (Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5). Once service is challenged, the Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing

that service was valid under FRCP 4.1 Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir.2004) (citing

Butcher's Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538 (9th Cir.1986)). If the Plaintiff is

unable to satisfy his burden, the Court has discretion to either dismiss the action or retain the action and

quash the service of process. See Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir.1976).

Case 3:10-cv-01886-GPC-MDD Document 178 Filed 07/13/11 Page 2 of 4
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

 Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 4.05 Service by Mail provides as follows:

In any action service may be made by mailing a copy of the summons and of the

complaint (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served,

together with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment conforming

substantially to Form 22 and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the

sender. If acknowledgment of service under this rule is not received by the sender

within the time defendant is required by these rules to serve an answer, service

shall be ineffectual.

3 10CV1886

From the record and moving papers, its appears uncontested that the Plaintiff mailed the

complaint to Defendant, but did not include the required notice or acknowledgment of service. See

Declaration of Claressa Duberry Declaration, ¶ 2. The complaint was sent to Jefferson by mail, but did

not include the required notice or acknowledgment of service. Duberry Declaration, ¶ 2. While regular

first class mail would be sufficient service under Minnesota law,2 and by proxy, under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A) if the Defendant is provided two copies of a notice and acknowledgment and

sends an acknowledgment of service to Plaintiff within twenty days, this did not occur. As such, the

Plaintiff’s attempted service is insufficient as a matter of law, and the service of the summons must be

quashed. Based upon the foregoing and in light of this Court’s March 2, 2011 Order, the Plaintiff’s

claims as to Defendant Jefferson Capital are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Since the Plaintiff has now been warned twice by this Court regarding his failure to properly

serve Defendants, the Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to file and serve a Second

Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff is warned that any further failure to comply with Rule 4 and

effectuate proper service on any of the Defendants previously dismissed on these grounds will result in

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-01886-GPC-MDD Document 178 Filed 07/13/11 Page 3 of 4
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 10CV1886

the Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants being DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE without further

motion by Defendants. In light of the foregoing the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file Second Amended

Complaint, [Doc. No. 175], is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01886-GPC-MDD Document 178 Filed 07/13/11 Page 4 of 4