Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02577/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02577-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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 - 10CV2577

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN J. DONELL, Permanent

Receiver for Learn Waterhouse, Inc., its

subsidiaries and affiliates,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV2577-LAB (CAB)

ORDER RE: ENTRY OF

DEFAULT; 

vs. AND ORDER RE: DISMISSAL

DAVID TREADWELL,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Stephen Donell requested the Clerk to enter a default against the Defendant

David Treadwell for failing to respond or appear. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), "[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, the clerk must enter the party's

default." The Clerk then entered a default against Treadwell.

Donell claimed that Treadwell was served with process as provided by Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code § 415.40. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) (permitting service as provided under state law).

In his request for default, Donell attached Exhibit A, showing that he sent the summons by

certified mail, which is permitted under § 415.40. Pathak v. Omaha Steaks Int'l, Inc., 2011

WL 1152656 at *1 (C.D.Cal., March 28, 2011); Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond

Electronics Corp., 179 Cal.App.4th 868, 897 (2009). Under § 415.40, however, proof of

Case 3:10-cv-02577-LAB-CAB Document 9 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10CV2577

service must include "evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the

person to be served, by a signed return receipt or other evidence." 

Donell attached a return receipt that was filled out, but not stamped as delivered,

signed, or dated with the delivery date. He has presented no evidence to show that a return

receipt was requested at the time of mailing, that the Defendant actually received process

papers, or that the return receipt was mailed back to him after the letter was received. 

Rule 4(e) also permits service in accordance with the state law where service is made,

in this case Florida. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070, service shall be “dispatched

by certified mail, return receipt requested.” Donell fares no better under this provision, and

Florida law holds that “statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed to

insure that a defendant receives notice of the proceedings. The burden of proving the validity

of service of process is on the plaintiff.” Carter v. Lil' Joe Records, Inc., 829 So.2d 953, 954,

Fla.App. 4 Dist. (2002).

Because Donell failed to provide adequate proof of service, the entry of default is

VACATED.

On June 7, the Court ordered Donell to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to serve or for failure to prosecute. Donell filed a response asserting

Defendant had been served, and he is now prepared to prosecute this action. In view of the

vacatur of the entry of default, it is unclear whether Donell will prosecute this action as

promised. Donell is therefore ORDERED to file adequate proof of service no later than

Wednesday, July 13, 2011, and then to renew his request for entry of default. If he does

not do so, this action will be dismissed for failure to serve and for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02577-LAB-CAB Document 9 Filed 07/01/11 Page 2 of 2