Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02301/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02301-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

1 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AVIARA PARKWAY FARMS, INC. and 

RANCHO SANTA FE PRODUCE, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

AGROPECUARIA LA FINCA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 8-cv-2301-JM-BLM 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE 

Docket Nos. 106-07 

I. BACKGROUND 

In August of 2010, the court entered default judgment against Agropecuaria La Finca, 

S.P.R. de R.L. (“La Finca”) and Jose Raul Aviles Geraldo. Included in that order was a 

permanent injunction

restraining Defendant LA FINCA, its agents, subsidiaries, successors, assignees, 

principals, associates, employees, attorneys and persons acting in concert with it, 

from engaging in, committing, or performing, directly or indirectly, any or all of 

the following acts: transferring, transporting, assigning or selling any produce 

grown by LA FINCA and shipped to the United States to any party other than 

AVIARA for distribution in the United States. 

Plaintiffs recently filed a motion claiming that the permanent injunction has been violated by 

Jose Jesus Gonzalez Gonzalez, individually and doing business as Gonimver Produce S.P.R. de 

JM

Case 3:08-cv-02301-JM-BLM Document 109 Filed 03/23/12 Page 1 of 4
 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

R.L. (“Gonzalez”), Salvador Pelayo Lopez, individually and doing business as La Gravilla 

S.P.R. de R.L. (“Pelayo Lopez”), and DG Sales, Inc., doing business as The Growers Connection 

(“The Growers Connection” or “GC”) (Gonzalez and Pelayo Lopez are referred to collectively as 

the “Farmers,” and the Farmers and GC are collectively referred to as “Defendants”). According 

to the motion, the Farmers were two of the seven principals of La Finca. Plaintiffs allege that 

after the permanent injunction was issued, La Finca disbanded, but the Farmers continued to use 

the same land and buildings to grow and pack produce. Plaintiffs claim that the Farmers have 

violated the injunction by shipping tomatoes to GC rather than to Plaintiffs. 

 Defendants have specially appeared and have stipulated with Plaintiffs in open court that 

Defendants’ papers may be deemed a motion to quash service because Plaintiffs did not 

personally serve them with process, instead serving Defendants’ attorneys. For the reasons 

stated below, the motion is GRANTED. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ attorneys had implied authority to accept service of 

process. The argument relies on Plaintiffs’ claims that before they were served, Defendants’ 

attorneys had made clear that they were representing Defendants in this matter. In support, 

Plaintiffs discuss one case, In re Focus Media Inc., 387 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2004), which held 

that in some situations, attorneys can have implied authority to accept service of process. 

 However, as Defendants pointed out at hearing, In re Focus Media requires a much 

stronger showing of implied authority than exists here. The court there examined three factors 

that indicated service had been impliedly authorized: (1) the party’s attorney in that case “was 

extensively involved in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding”; (2) in the underlying proceeding, 

the attorney had been served with process as an agent without any objection, and (3) the party 

had submitted a declaration in a previous state court proceeding stating that the attorney was his 

general counsel and had “been consulted on a variety of legal matters and [had] been made privy 

Case 3:08-cv-02301-JM-BLM Document 109 Filed 03/23/12 Page 2 of 4
 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

to confidential financial, tax, and legal information.” Id. at 1084. Further discussing the third 

point, the court noted that “an agent’s authority to act cannot be established solely from the 

agent’s actions.” Id. Clarifying the importance of the existence of factors such as these, one 

district court recently noted that “the attorney-client relationship by itself is insufficient to 

convey authority to accept service.” Kruska v. Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc. 2009 WL 

4041941 at *2 (D. Ariz. 2009) (explaining that the “record must show that the attorney exercised 

authority beyond the attorney-client relationship, including the power to accept service”).

 Here, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Defendants and their attorneys have a 

relationship that extends beyond a typical attorney-client relationship, and there is no indication 

that Defendants have made any statements granting their attorneys authority to accept service of 

process.

 Plaintiffs also seem to argue that service on the Farmers’ attorney should be acceptable 

because it is “a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). 

However, that argument ignores the rest of Rule 4(f), which directs service of process to be 

completed through the Hague Convention. Thus, service through “a method that is reasonably 

calculated to give notice” is only acceptable if allowed by the Hague Convention.1

III. CONCLUSION 

 Service of process on Defendants’ attorneys was improper, and to the extent that 

Plaintiffs’ brief asks the court to authorize service on Defendants’ attorneys under Rule 4.1, that 

request is unsupported by case law authority and is denied.2

 In order to proceed, Plaintiffs must 

 

1 While the court declines to direct a specific method of service absent more complete briefing on 

the issue, a recent district court decision in the Ninth Circuit held that service must be accomplished 

through Mexico’s central authority, and that Mexico does not allow other methods under the Hague 

Convention. Barnett v. Miguel, 2011 WL 4738555 at *1(D. Idaho 2011) (citing to recent law review 

article that “makes clear that Mexico’s Central Authority does not permit alternative service”). 

2

 Plaintiffs’ brief seems to assume that if service on Defendants’ attorneys was improper, service 

must be accomplished through the procedure set forth in Rule 4.1. Again declining to decide the issue 

due to insufficient briefing, the court notes that attempting to serve a nonparty for contempt of a prior 

Case 3:08-cv-02301-JM-BLM Document 109 Filed 03/23/12 Page 3 of 4
 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

effect proper service on the Farmers and GC. The court recognizes Plaintiffs’ frustration with 

being forced to serve parties it believes have acted in concert with parties to the original case, but 

allowing circumvention of proper service here would necessitate assuming the correctness of the 

facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt. The court cannot do so. The motion to quash 

service is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2012 

______________________________

Jeffrey T. Miller 

 United States District Judge 

 

injunction has been viewed by some courts as analogous to filing a completely new action, perhaps 

indicating that a summons is required and service under Rule 4 would be proper. See In re Estate of 

Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 94 F.3d 539, 545 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that in seeking 

to charge a nonparty with contempt, “that party must be served with process as in any other civil action”) 

(quoting 11A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Proc.: Civ. 2d § 2960 (1995)).

______________________________

JeffreyT. Miller

United States District Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-02301-JM-BLM Document 109 Filed 03/23/12 Page 4 of 4