Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01451-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freedom Mortgage Corporation
Defendant
Gesele Marsh
Plaintiff
Terrance Marsh
Plaintiff

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE MARSH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO FILE 

RETURNED SERVICE DOCUMENTS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS AND 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADDRESS 

FOR THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS 

SERVICE TO SERVE DEFENDANT

(ECF Nos. 15, 16, 18)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh proceed pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) 

in this civil action. (ECF Nos. 1, 7, 9). On January 25, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiffs’ first 

amended complaint, and concluded that they stated a claim against Defendant Freedom Mortgage 

Corporation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (ECF No. 10).

Since screening the complaint, the Court has repeatedly provided Plaintiffs instructions to 

help them serve Defendant. However, they have failed to comply with court orders. The US 

Marshals also attempted to serve Defendant at the address Plaintiffs initially provided, but the 

address was inaccurate. It now appears that Plaintiffs do not know Defendant’s true address. 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 21 Filed 07/22/24 Page 1 of 6
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

Accordingly, as further explained below, the Court will recommend that this case be 

dismissed, without prejudice based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Court orders and failure 

to provide a single known address for the United States Marshals Service (USMS) to serve 

Defendant.

I. BACKGROUND

After the Court screened the complaint, it ordered Plaintiffs to complete and return service 

documents. (ECF No. 11). Importantly, because Plaintiffs proceed IFP, the Court must order the 

US Marshal’s service to effect service for Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (“At the plaintiff’s 

request, the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or 

by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized 

to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . . . .”). However, the service documents 

(the summons and USM-285 forms) require Plaintiffs to provide a correct address for Defendant. 

After Plaintiffs returned the service documents (ECF No. 12), the Court ordered the 

USMS to serve Defendant at the address provided by Plaintiffs, which was in Edmond, 

Oklahoma. (ECF No. 13). Although the USMS attempted to do so, it was unable to serve 

Defendant because the address Plaintiffs provided for Defendant was incorrect. (ECF No. 14). 

The handwritten notation on the USM-285 form stated, “Location is AFDI Tech.” (Id.) 

(capitalization omitted). Notably, in the special instructions space on the form, Plaintiffs provided 

another possible address for Defendant in Denver, Colorado.

In response, the Court advised Plaintiffs that it was their responsibility to provide a correct 

address for the USMS to serve Defendant and warned them that failure to do so could lead to 

dismissal. (ECF No. 15); see Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting 

requirement for a plaintiff to provide correct information to the United States Marshals service to 

serve a defendant), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). The

Court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiffs new service documents, ordered Plaintiffs to 

fill them out and return them within twenty-one days, and sua sponte extended the 90-day service 

deadline, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), to August 2, 2024, to give Plaintiffs sufficient time to serve 

Defendant.

After Plaintiffs failed to timely return the service documents, or respond at all to the 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 21 Filed 07/22/24 Page 2 of 6
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

Court’s order, the Court gave them a sua sponte extension to June 28, 2024, to return the service 

documents. (ECF No. 16). The Court warned them that failure to comply with the order could 

result in dismissal. 

Plaintiffs returned the service documents one day before the deadline, however they did 

not comply with the Court’s order. (ECF No. 17). Most notably, Plaintiffs provided three 

different addresses for the USMS to serve Defendant: (1) a Boca Raton, Florida address; (2) a 

Huntington Beach, California address; and (3) and a Glendale, California address. (ECF No. 19). 

Moreover, some of Plaintiffs’ instructions for service were vague and did not appear likely to lead 

to sufficient service. For example, for the Boca Raton, Florida address, Plaintiffs provided 

instructions to serve “loss mitigation” along with a phone number. (Id. at 3). 

On July 2, 2024, the Court issued an order reminding Plaintiffs that it was their 

responsibility to provide the USMS with an address to serve Defendant and noted that it would 

not waste valuable resources on serving multiple addresses that did not appear likely to lead to 

sufficient service. (ECF No. 18). The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiffs new 

service documents, ordered Plaintiffs to fill them out and return them by July 31, 2024, and once 

more sua sponte extended the service deadline to October 2, 2024. In this order, the Court 

specifically instructed Plaintiffs to provide “a single address” for Defendant and included a 

footnote stating, “The Court will not direct the United States Marshals Service to serve multiple 

purported addresses for Defendant.” (Id. at 3, n.1). The Court again warned Plaintiffs that failure 

to comply with the order could result in dismissal.

On July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs returned the service documents, including two summonses 

with a Fishers, Indiana address for Defendant; however, the two USM-285 forms had different 

addresses: (1) the Fishers, Indiana address; and (2) the same Glendale, California address that 

Plaintiffs had provided in their prior service documents.

II. ANALYSIS 

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to 

comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 21 Filed 07/22/24 Page 3 of 6
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

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 

642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Id.

(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, this 

first factor weighs in favor of dismissal. As to the Court’s need to manage its docket, “[t]he trial 

judge is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with 

docket management and the public interest.” Id.

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with court orders. First, they failed to timely return 

service documents. (See ECF Nos. 15, 16). Second, despite clearly instructing them to provide a 

single address to serve Defendant, Plaintiffs have once again provided multiple addresses. (ECF 

No. 18).

Moreover, the record in the case strongly suggests that Plaintiffs do not know Defendant’s 

true address. First, Plaintiff’s initial address for service in Edmond, Oklahoma was not a correct 

address for Defendant. Second, Plaintiffs failed to timely return service documents, indicating 

they could not locate an address for Defendant. Third, when Plaintiffs finally submitted the 

service documents (one day before the deadline) they provided three distinct addresses. Fourth, 

despite giving Plaintiffs the opportunity to submit new service documents with a single address, 

they returned the documents with two different addresses. At this point, Plaintiffs have submitted 

six distinct addresses for Defendant: (1) Edmond, Oklahoma; (2) Denver, Colorado; (3) Boca 

Raton, Florida; (4) Huntington Beach, California; (5) Glendale, California; and (6) Fishers, 

Indiana. 

In short, Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with court orders, coupled with circumstances 

suggesting that they do not have a correct address for Defendant, are preventing the case from 

moving forward. The Court concludes that it would simply delay the case further and waste 

judicial resources to yet again permit Plaintiffs to submit new service documents to try to serve 

Defendant. See Hill v. Escobar, No. 2:21-CV-02118-DAD-JDP (PC), 2024 WL 170132, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1858217 (E.D. Cal. 

Apr. 26, 2024) (recommending dismissal of case where a plaintiff, after multiple opportunities, 

failed to provide an address for defendants). Therefore, the second factor weighs in favor of 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 21 Filed 07/22/24 Page 4 of 6
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

dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). 

However, “delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence 

will become stale,” id. at 643, and it is Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with court orders and to 

provide the USMS with a single service address for Defendant that is causing delay and 

preventing this case from advancing. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, given that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with 

court orders and have failed to provide the USMS with a single service address, despite being 

warned of possible dismissal multiple times, there is little available to the Court that would 

constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary 

expenditure of its scarce resources. Given the stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of 

evidence or witnesses is not available. Additionally, because the dismissal being considered in 

this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of using the harshest possible sanction 

of dismissal with prejudice. Therefore, the fourth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs against 

dismissal. Id.

III. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

After weighing the factors regarding dismissal, the Court concludes that dismissal without 

prejudice is appropriate. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file Plaintiffs’ returned 

service documents (those submitted on July 15, 2024) on the docket. (See ECF No. 20). 

Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 

1. This case be dismissed, without prejudice, because of Plaintiffs’ failure to comply 

with court orders and failure to provide an address for the USMS to serve Defendant; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiffs may file written 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 21 Filed 07/22/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 

F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 21 Filed 07/22/24 Page 6 of 6