Flickinger v. Castillo ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASON ARCHIE FLICKINGER, Case No. 24-cv-02915-SVK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART EX PARTE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE 10 JAQUELINE REYES CASTILLO, et al., SERVICE AND TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 8 12 Despite three-months’ worth of attempts to serve 37 Defendants, self-represented Plaintiff 13 remains unable to serve them by his deadline for service. He now moves ex parte for the Court to 14 extend his time to serve Defendants and permit service via alternative means, specifically, by 15 publication on a website. See Dkt. 8 (the “Motion”). The Court has determined that the Motion is 16 suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). After considering the 17 Motion, relevant law and the record in this action, and for the reasons that follow, the Court 18 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff commenced this action on May 14, 2024, and subsequently filed an amended 21 complaint. See Dkts. 1 (the “Complaint”), 6 (the “FAC”). He sues dozens of defendants who fall into one of three categories: (1) individuals residing in California; (2) individuals residing in 22 Mexico; and (3) government entities within Mexico, including Mexico itself. See FAC at 4-13. 23 He tried, unsuccessfully, to serve Defendants, and he now moves for relief in that regard. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// II. LEGAL STANDARD 1 A. Motion To Extend Time For Service 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, a plaintiff must serve a defendant “within 90 3 days after the complaint is filed.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Filing an amended complaint does 4 not extend this 90-day deadline. See Jen v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. 15-cv-03834-HSG, 2018 WL 5 1524049, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2018). Where a plaintiff fails to complete service by the 6 deadline, the Court must either “dismiss the action without prejudice against th[e unserved] 7 defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “In 8 order to avoid dismissal for failure to serve the complaint and summons” by the deadline, “a 9 plaintiff must show ‘good cause.’” Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). “At a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect. A plaintiff may also 10 be required to show the following: (a) the party to be served personally received actual notice of 11 the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely 12 prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.” Id. at 756 (citation omitted). 13 B. Motion For Alternative Service 14 Rule 4 permits service of individuals outside the United States by, inter alia, “means not 15 prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Thus, 16 “service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the court; and (2) not prohibited by 17 international agreement. No other limitations are evident from the text.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio 18 Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). But 19 [e]ven if facially permitted by Rule 4(f)(3), a method of service of process must 20 also comport with constitutional notions of due process. To meet this requirement, the method of service crafted by the district court must be “reasonably calculated, 21 under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the 22 action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” 23 Id. at 1016 (citation omitted). A plaintiff must also “demonstrate that the facts and circumstances 24 of the [] case necessitate[] the district court’s intervention.” See id. Ultimately, “[t]he decision 25 whether to allow alternative methods of serving process under Rule 4(f)(3) is committed to the 26 ‘sound discretion of the district court.’” Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 805 (9th Cir. 2004) 27 (citation omitted). III. DISCUSSION 1 A. Plaintiff Has Shown Good Cause For His Failure To Serve Defendants 2 Because Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 12, 2024, his 90-day period to serve 3 Defendants expires on August 12, 2024. Over the past three months, he “ha[s] tried to contact 4 opposing parties in every way imaginable,” including “via email, Facebook, Whatsapp, and 5 written communications personally delivered by [his] current Mexican council [sic].” See Dkt. 8- 6 1 ¶ 3. Failure to serve Defendants despite such diligence constitutes good cause. See, e.g., JBR, 7 Inc. v. Café Don Paco, Inc., No. 12-cv-02377-NC, 2013 WL 1891386, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 8 2013). 9 However, the 90-day deadline does not apply to service outside the United States. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Dutrisac v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 23-cv-06639-BLF, 2024 WL 10 3646949, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2024). Thus, while the Court will extend Plaintiff’s time to 11 serve Defendants, that extension will apply to only those Defendants located within the United 12 States. For service outside the United States, Plaintiff may continue to attempt service without 13 regard to any deadline, although Plaintiff must still “pursue service in a ‘diligent fashion.’” See 14 Ho v. Pinsukanjana, No. 17-cv-06520-PJH, 2019 WL 2415456, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2019) 15 (citation omitted). 16 B. Plaintiff Does Not Demonstrate The Need For Or Propriety Of Service Via Website Publication1 17 Plaintiff offers no documentary evidence supporting his contention that he has failed to 18 serve Defendants despite his diligence. He describes, in general terms, his attempts to serve 19 Defendants. See Dkt. 8-1 ¶ 3. He also points the Court to certain paragraphs in the FAC that 20 ostensibly describe his failed attempts at service. See Dkt. 8-2 at 5. But the enumerated 21 paragraphs do not describe with any level of specificity his attempts to effectuate service in this 22 action. See FAC ¶¶ 78 (describing conduct from 2020 predating commencement of this action), 23 149 (describing conduct from 2023 predating commencement of this action), 152 (same), 180 24 (“Plaintiff’s second and third law firms repetitively failed to affect service and blatantly lied about 25 26 1 Plaintiff requests permission to serve via alternative means individual Defendants only; he does not seek to serve any foreign government entities through alternative means. See Motion at 3. 27 Indeed, the Court cannot authorize such alternative service of foreign government entities. See 1 the failed service. Plaintiff asks this Court to consider that he has exhausted available local 2 remedies. Plaintiff has abandoned his home in Torreón and believes further pursuit will be futile or will subject the plaintiff to a risk of reprisal.”). Without any evidence, beyond bare assertions, 3 that diligent efforts at service have been unsuccessful, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has 4 “demonstrate[d] that the facts and circumstances of the present case necessitate[] the [Court’s] 5 intervention.” Rio, 284 F.3d at 1016. 6 Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that his requested method of alternative service 7 complies with the requirements of due process. He seeks to serve Defendants via publication on a 8 website that he maintains and of which Defendants are purportedly aware, as they have apparently 9 sued Plaintiff in connection with that website. See Motion at 3. Again, however, he provides no 10 documentary evidence demonstrating Defendants’ awareness of the website, and the Court is 11 therefore concerned that service via publication on the website may not actually notify Defendants 12 of this action. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s requested method of alternative service is “reasonably calculated, under all the 13 circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an 14 opportunity to present their objections.” Rio, 284 F.3d at 1016 (citation omitted); see, e.g., Astral 15 IP Enter. Ltd. v. Apero Techs. Grp., No. 23-cv-02853-JSC, 2023 WL 5498730, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. 16 Aug. 23, 2023) (due process not satisfied where plaintiff offered no evidence that service via email 17 was “reasonably calculated to provide Defendant notice of this action”). 18 Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request to serve Defendants via alternative 19 means without prejudice to Plaintiff re-submitting his request. If Plaintiff renews his request, he 20 must provide documentary evidence demonstrating that: (1) he has diligently tried, and failed, to 21 serve Defendants; and (2) his requested method of alternative service will actually notify 22 Defendants of this action. 23 /// /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 2 Motion as follows: 3 e Plaintiff’s deadline to effectuate service is extended to October 14, 2024. 4 e Plaintiff may not, at this time, serve Defendants via alternative means. However, he may 5 renew his request if properly supported by evidence, as explained above. 6 The Court encourages Plaintiff to seek free legal assistance from the Legal Help Center 7 || located in the San Jose courthouse. The Legal Help Center will not represent Plaintiff in this action but can provide basic legal assistance at no cost. Plaintiff can schedule an appointment by 9 calling 408-297-1480 or emailing hsong@asianlawalliance.org. Plaintiff can find more 10 information about the Legal Help Center at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. The Court also provides a free guide, “Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A " Handbook for Pro Se Litigants,” which provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of 2 the case, including discovery, motions and trial. Plaintiff can access the guide online = 13 (https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Pro_Se_ Handbook_4- 14 2024 MBB.pdf) or in hard copy free of charge from the Clerk’s Office. 2 15 SO ORDERED. 16 |) Dated: August 12, 2024 18 usm yet 19 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28