Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05866/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05866-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05866-HSG 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANT

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Plaintiff Gloria Davis filed this employment discrimination action on September 20, 2019. 

See Dkt. No. 1. The Court set a case management conference on January 14, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. 

See Dkt. No. 7. However, Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing. See Dkt. No. 11. The Court 

intended to discuss with Plaintiff at the case management conference why Defendants have not yet 

been properly served. Id. The Court then issued an order to show cause why the case should not 

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiff responded 

asking for an extension of time because she intended to obtain counsel. See Dkt. No. 13. 

The Court credits Plaintiff’s explanation that she is in the process of looking for new 

counsel and DISCHARGES the order to show cause. Nevertheless, the Court will not wait 

indefinitely for Plaintiff to find new counsel before she begins litigating this case. As the Court 

cautioned in the order to show cause, when Plaintiff filed this action, she assumed the 

responsibility of serving the parties, appearing at all hearings, and prosecuting her case. See Dkt. 

No. 12.

A plaintiff must serve each defendant with a summons and complaint within ninety days of 

filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). To do so, the plaintiff must serve the proper 

entities in the proper way.

Case 4:19-cv-05866-HSG Document 14 Filed 04/10/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) allows for service of a corporation, partnership, or 

association “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing 

or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of 

process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires—by also mailing 

a copy of each to the defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). Rule 4 also allows a corporation to 

be served “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general 

jurisdiction, where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(h)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).

California law allows for service upon a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons 

and complaint “[t]o the person designated as agent for service of process;” or “[t]o the president or 

other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or 

assistant treasurer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service 

of process.” See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10. An unincorporated association similarly may be 

served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint “to the person designated as agent for 

service of process in a statement filed with the Secretary of State.” See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 

§ 416.40. 

California law also allows for substitute service on corporations and other entities as 

follows:

leav[e] a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office 

hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or 

her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service 

post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, 

and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by 

first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place 

where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a). Alternatively, California law provides for service by mail. See 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30. However, service is only complete under this section once “a 

written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is executed, if such acknowledgment thereafter is 

returned to the sender.” Id.

Here, there is nothing on the docket to indicate that Defendants were properly served. To 

Case 4:19-cv-05866-HSG Document 14 Filed 04/10/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

the contrary, the Proof of Service that Plaintiff filed with her “Amendment to Complaint” suggests 

that Plaintiff has not served any of the individual Defendants and did not serve the agents 

authorized to receive service of process for Defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and SEIU 

UHW Union. See Dkt. No. 10 at 3. Plaintiff also did not include a copy of an acknowledgment of 

receipt signed by Defendants.

However, given the discretion afforded to district courts in extending time for service even 

in the absence of good cause, coupled with plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court declines to dismiss 

this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely. See Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 

F.3d 507, 512–13 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard and the 

discretion afforded a district court in extending the time for service even in the absence of good 

cause).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to complete proper service on Defendants by June

12, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to complete service by this deadline, the case will be dismissed without 

prejudice under Rule 4(m). Plaintiff is encouraged to seek assistance at the Legal Help Center, 

which provides free information and limited-scope legal assistance to pro se litigants. More 

information about the Legal Help Center is provided at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help. 

Appointments may be scheduled either over the phone at (415) 782-8982 or by email at 

federalprobonoproject@sfbar.org.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/10/2020

Case 4:19-cv-05866-HSG Document 14 Filed 04/10/20 Page 3 of 3