Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00035/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00035-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laura Bratset
Plaintiff
Davis Joint Unified School District
Defendant
M.B.
Plaintiff
Winters Joint Unified School District
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAURA BRATSET, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-35-GEB-KJN PS 

ORDER 

 This case was initially commenced by plaintiffs Laura Bratset, as parent on behalf of 

minor plaintiff M.B., and Laura Bratset, on behalf of herself, proceeding without counsel, against 

defendants Davis Joint Unified School District (“DJUSD”) and Winters Joint Unified School 

District (“WJUSD”) on January 6, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) After the court denied plaintiffs’ motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis on March 24, 2016, plaintiffs paid the filing fee on April 5, 2016, 

and the summons and other civil case documents were issued that same day. (ECF Nos. 3-5.) On 

April 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Since the issuance of 

summons, several motions were filed by various parties to this action. This order resolves those 

pending motions and other matters. 

 On May 4, 2016, defendant DJUSD filed a motion to dismiss the action for insufficient 

service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). (ECF No. 19.) 

Case 2:16-cv-00035-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendant WJUSD has joined in that motion. (ECF No. 21.) Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ 

service of process was insufficient in various respects, including that plaintiff herself attempted to 

serve the defendants by mail and in person. It is well established that a party to a lawsuit may not 

serve process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) (“Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a 

party may serve a summons and complaint.”) (emphasis added); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 

414.10 (“A summons may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party 

to the action.”) (emphasis added). “A liberal construction of Rule 4 cannot be utilized as a 

substitute for the plain requirement as to the manner in which service of process may be had.” 

Reeder v. Knapik, 2007 WL 1655812, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2007) (citing Mid-Continent Wood 

Products, Inc. v. Harris, 936 F.2d 297, 300 (7th Cir. 1991)). In this case, plaintiffs’ certificates of 

service indicate on their face that plaintiff Laura Bratset herself, despite being a party to the 

action, attempted to complete service of process. (ECF Nos. 6, 11, 12.) As such, service of 

process was plainly insufficient. 

 “Upon deciding that process has not been properly served on the defendant, a district court 

has broad discretion to either dismiss the complaint or quash service of process.” Surefire, LLC 

v. Casual Home Worldwide, Inc., 2012 WL 2417313, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012). “However, 

if it appears that effective service can be made and there has been no prejudice to the defendant, a 

court will quash service rather than dismiss the action.” Id. Here, it appears that effective service 

on defendants can still be made. The 90-day period to complete service of process pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) has not yet expired, and the court is unaware of any specific 

prejudice to the defendants.1

 As such, the court quashes service of process in lieu of dismissal. 

 

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, in part, that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 

90 days after the complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the 

plaintiff -- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service 

be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court 

must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” In this case, although the complaint 

was filed on January 6, 2016, it was accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The 

summons was only issued by the Clerk of Court on April 5, 2016, after the court denied the 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 4.) Because 

plaintiff could not have served her complaint without a summons, it appears that the Rule 4(m) 

90-day period actually commenced on April 5, 2016, thus requiring plaintiff to complete service 

of process by July 4, 2016. Moreover, even if the Rule 4(m) period strictly commenced upon the 

Case 2:16-cv-00035-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

3

 Defendant WJUSD also filed an alternative motion to dismiss the action pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as well as to strike improper allegations pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(e). However, because the court quashes service of process on defendant 

WJUSD, the court denies that motion without prejudice at this juncture. Defendant WJUSD may 

renew its motion if it appears in the action after having been properly served with process. 

Plaintiffs also filed two motions. The first is a motion for appointment of counsel. It is 

“well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United 

States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, although the court is 

sympathetic to the difficulties faced by pro se litigants in litigating their own cases in federal 

court, the court has extremely limited resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases. As such, 

plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

Plaintiffs are advised that, although plaintiff Laura Bratset can prosecute her own claims 

without counsel, she cannot, as a non-lawyer, represent plaintiff M.B. in federal court. To be 

sure, plaintiff Laura Bratset could request to be appointed as guardian ad litem for plaintiff M.B., 

but an appointed guardian ad litem would still have to retain a licensed attorney to prosecute 

claims in federal court on behalf of the minor plaintiff. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 

F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e hold that a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on 

behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.”); Estate of Laffoon v. Christianson, 2011 WL 

1743645, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011) (“[A] non-attorney parent or guardian cannot bring a 

lawsuit in federal court on behalf of a minor or incompetent without retaining a lawyer. This is so 

because the minor’s right to trained legal assistance is greater than the parent’s right to appear pro 

se.”). 

In her motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff Laura Bratset indicated that she has 

already made extensive efforts to obtain counsel, which were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, out of 

abundance of caution, the court grants plaintiffs an additional period of time until June 30, 2016, 

 

filing of plaintiff’s complaint, the court finds good cause to extend the time for completion of 

service of process until July 4, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00035-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 5
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

to obtain counsel for plaintiff M.B. No later than June 30, 2016, plaintiff M.B. shall appear 

through a licensed attorney and file a request for appointment of an appropriate guardian ad litem 

in accordance with Local Rule 202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.2 Failure to do so will 

result in dismissal of plaintiff M.B.’s claims without prejudice. 

Finally, plaintiffs’ second motion is a “motion requesting pendent placement.” That 

motion essentially requests a court order requiring defendants to maintain plaintiff M.B.’s current 

educational placement and services pending resolution of this case. However, because plaintiffs 

have not yet properly served defendants with process, the court lacks the requisite personal 

jurisdiction over the defendants to even conceivably enter such an order. See Omni Capital Int’l, 

Ltd. v. Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal 

jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be 

satisfied.”). Therefore, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice, and without 

expressing any opinion concerning the merits of the motion. Plaintiffs are free to renew such a 

motion once defendants have been properly served with process and have appeared in the action, 

whereupon defendants will also have an opportunity to oppose such requested relief, if they elect 

to do so. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant DJUSD’s motion to dismiss the action for insufficient service of process 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), in which defendant WJUSD 

joined, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

2. Service of process on defendants DJUSD and WJUSD is QUASHED. 

3. Plaintiffs shall complete proper service of process on defendants no later than July 4, 

2016. 

4. Defendant WJUSD’s motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 

12(e), and 12(f) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

5. The June 9, 2016 hearing on defendants’ motions is VACATED as moot. 

 

2

 Of course, that attorney may, but need not, agree to also represent plaintiff Laura Bratset. 

Case 2:16-cv-00035-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 05/17/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

6. Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

7. No later than June 30, 2016, plaintiff M.B. shall appear through a licensed attorney 

and file a request for appointment of an appropriate guardian ad litem in accordance 

with Local Rule 202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. 

8. Plaintiff’s motion requesting pendent placement is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

9. This order resolves ECF Nos. 9, 10, 13, 15, and 19. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: May 17, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00035-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 05/17/16 Page 5 of 5