Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01088/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01088-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Carrillo
Defendant
Cesar Pimentel
Plaintiff
Alfred Rivera
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR PIMENTEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

HANFORD POLICE OFFICERS ALFRED 

RIVERA and MARK CARRILLO, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:19-cv-01088-AWI-SKO

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE 

(Doc. 14)

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this case against 

Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) The Court found Plaintiff’s complaint stated 

a cognizable claim for failure to provide medical assistance, (see Docs. 4, 5, 6), and directed 

service of the complaint by the United States Marshal, (Docs. 7, 9). On October 25, 2019, proof 

of service was filed on the docket. (Doc. 10.) 

Defendants filed a motion to quash service on December 30, 2019. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff 

filed an opposition on January 10, 2020. (Doc. 15.) For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ 

motion is granted, and service is quashed. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that proper service can be made on 

an individual defendant by: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the 

Case 1:19-cv-01088-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 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

26

27

28

2

individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode 

with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to 

an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). 

Proper service can also be made pursuant to the applicable law of the state in which the case was 

filed or in which service is effected. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). 

Under California law, service may be made on an individual defendant by personally 

delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant or by substitute service under Cal. 

Civ. Code. § 415, which states, in relevant part:

If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be 

personally delivered to the person to be served . . . a summons may be served by 

leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual 

place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address . . . in the presence 

of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or 

her office, place of business, or usual mailing address . . . at least 18 years of age, 

who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of 

the summons and of the 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. Civ. Code § 415.20. 

When service is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that service was 

valid under Rule 4. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). “Normally the process 

server’s return will provide a prima facie case as to the facts of service, but if the defendant 

introduces uncontroverted affidavits in support of a motion to quash service, the content of those 

affidavits will be deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.” O’Dell v. Inyo County Sheriff’s 

Dep., No. CV-F-06-658 OWW/SMS, 2006 WL 3834397, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2006) (quoting 

Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3rd § 1353, pp. 343-344). 

“Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives 

sufficient notice of the complaint.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 

736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984). However, there still must be “substantial compliance” with 

Rule 4, otherwise, “neither actual notice nor simply naming the defendant in the complaint will 

Case 1:19-cv-01088-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 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

26

27

28

3

provide personal jurisdiction.” Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, 

Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). If service was insufficient, the Court may 

either dismiss the action or retain the action and quash service of process. Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat’l 

Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1976). 

B. Analysis

Here, the return of service states that on October 25, 2019, service was effected on 

Defendants at the Hanford Police Department, 425 N. Irwin Street, Hanford, California 93230, by 

delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to “A. Carrillo, Records Assistant,” who “accepted 

service” on behalf of Defendants. (See Doc. 10.) There is no indication that personal service on 

Defendants was attempted or that the summons and complaint were mailed to Defendant’s place of 

business. Defendants’ motion attaches declarations stating that Defendants were not personally 

served and did not receive copies of the summons or the complaint in the mail. (Docs. 14-2, 14-3.) 

The Court finds that service was not properly effected under Rule 4(e) or under California 

law, and therefore service must be quashed. As to substitute service under Rule 4, although the 

return of service states that “A. Carillo” accepted service on behalf of Defendants, this is insufficient 

to show that A. Carrillo was “authorized by appointment or by law” to receive service of process 

for Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(C); see also, e.g., United States v. Marple Community 

Record, Inc., 335 F. Supp. 95, 102 (E.D. Pa. 1971) (“Obviously, something more than mere 

acceptance must be shown to demonstrate an agency relationship for this specific purpose [of 

accepting service]”); 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 4.10[4], at 4-176 (“The agent’s acceptance of 

service, or his own statement as to his authority, is insufficient, standing alone, to establish 

authorization to receive process.”). In sum, the Court cannot find that Defendants explicitly 

appointed A. Carrillo to accept service, or impliedly appointed her “from the circumstances 

surrounding the service upon the agent.” See 4A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure § 1098 (3d ed. 2002); see also Perez Lopez v. Mangome, 117 F.R.D. 327, 

Case 1:19-cv-01088-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 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

26

27

28

4

328 (D.P.R. 1987) (finding insufficient service of process where the defendant police officers were 

served by leaving copies of the summons and complaint with an administrative assistant at the police 

department).

As to substitute service under California law, the return of service reflects that copies of the 

summons and the complaint were left at Defendants’ place of business, but there is no indication 

that personal service was attempted first, and there is no indication that the summons and complaint 

were also mailed by first-class mail to Defendants’ place of business. (See Doc. 10.) Thus, service 

was similarly ineffective under Cal. Civ. Code § 415.20. Accordingly, the Court finds that service 

must be quashed. In its discretion, the Court will retain jurisdiction, quash service and direct the 

United States Marshal to re-serve Defendants. See Stevens, 538 F.2d at 1389. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to quash service, (Doc. 14), is GRANTED, and service is 

QUASHED.

2. The Court will direct the United States Marshal Service to re-serve Defendants by 

separate order.

3. The mandatory scheduling conference currently set for January 23, 2020, is 

CONTINUED to April 16, 2020 at 10:15 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01088-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 01/14/20 Page 4 of 4