Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00607/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00607-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Laura M. Wells; Kelley L. Bradbury; 

Morgan M. Block; Melanie Haswood; 

Brian Gilmore; Bradley Ledford; Elie 

Lahhoud; Timothy Roberts; Elizabeth 

Trujillo; Devin Brennan; Dean Bausman; 

William Reynolds; and Nancy Farran, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

American Polygraph Association; Barry 

Cushman; Charles Slupski; Pam Shaw; 

George Baranowski; Robert Peters; Walt 

Goodson; Jamie McCloughan; Raymond 

Nelson; Mike Gougler; Vickie T. MurphyCarr; Chad Russell; Gordon L. Vaughan; 

Donald Krapohl; Robbie S. Bennett; 

Donnie Dutton; Lisa Jacocks; and Roy 

Ortiz, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-13-00607-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are several motions: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 28), Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29), 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Doc. 56), Defendants’ Motion to Strike Service Executed 

(Doc. 59), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Reply 

(Doc. 71). For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as 

moot, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is denied as moot, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is 

denied as premature, and Defendants’ Motion to Strike is granted. 

Case 2:13-cv-00607-GMS Document 74 Filed 08/21/13 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 

 Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiffs’ Affidavit/Proof of Service filed on 

June 21, 2013. (Doc. 59.) Plaintiffs’ Proof of Service indicates that Plaintiffs served the 

summons on attorney Whitney M. Harvey, whom Defendants had not authorized to 

accept service on their behalf as of June 21, 2013. (See Doc. 55.) Service of a complaint 

on an attorney is ineffective unless the attorney has specific authority to accept service. 

Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 827 F.2d 1246, 1248–49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs 

object that Harvey had submitted a notice of appearance as attorney of record for all 

Defendants on June 4, 2013. (See Doc. 43.) That appearance did not, however, contain 

any express grant of authority to accept service on behalf of Defendants. The attorneyclient relationship by itself is insufficient to convey authority to accept service. Kruska v. 

Perverted Justice Found. Inc., No. CV-08-0054-PHX-SMM, 2009 WL 4041941 at *2 (D. 

Ariz. Nov. 16, 2009). Though implied authority to accept service of process is 

permissible in the Ninth Circuit, an agent’s authority to act cannot be established solely 

though the agent’s actions; rather, the authority must be established by an act of the 

principal. In re Focus Media Inc., 387 F.3d 1077, 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, there 

is no evidence of any act by Defendants indicating that Harvey had authority to accept 

service of process. The fact that Harvey requested copies of notices and pleadings to be 

sent to her does not implicate Defendants, who have not by their actions or otherwise 

given Harvey permission to accept service on their behalf. Thus, Plaintiffs’ service of 

process by mailing the Complaint to Harvey was insufficient, and Defendants’ Motion to 

Strike is granted. 

 Because Plaintiffs have not yet effectuated service on Defendants, their Motion to 

Amend is premature, as is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the as-yet unserved Complaint. 

Because the Motion to Dismiss is premature, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Motion to 

Dismiss and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to their Reply are denied 

as moot. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28) 

is DENIED AS PREMATURE.

Case 2:13-cv-00607-GMS Document 74 Filed 08/21/13 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Doc. 56) is 

DENIED AS PREMATURE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Service 

Executed (Doc. 59) is GRANTED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Response (Doc. 

71) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall properly serve the Defendants 

within 30 days of the date of this Order with the Summons and Amended Complaint1

and file proof of service. 

 Dated this 21st day of August, 2013. 

 

1

 The Amended Complaint filed on May 1, 2013 (Doc. 24) is the “operative complaint” in this matter. 

Case 2:13-cv-00607-GMS Document 74 Filed 08/21/13 Page 3 of 3