Anh Van Thai v. County of Los Angeles
3:15-cv-00583
S.D. Cal.Mar 15, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Vietnamese, Iranian, Somalian immigrants/refugees) sued the SSA and unnamed SSA and state/local agents alleging harassment and searches in 2014–2015; initial complaint filed March 14, 2015; Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed December 27, 2015.
- Plaintiffs seek expedited discovery to learn the true names and service addresses of anonymous defendants (“Agent Nick,” “SSA Agent 2,” other “SSA Armed Agents,” Supervisor Mary Haggard/Haggart, and Duke Duc Tran) so they can effect service.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC; the motion remains pending. Defendants offered to provide some identifying information if an operative complaint survives the motion to dismiss and states viable claims.
- Plaintiffs missed Rule 4(m) service deadlines for originally named Doe defendants under the former 120-day rule; post-amendment SAC defendants are subject to the 90-day Rule 4(m) period (expiring March 28, 2016).
- Magistrate judge declined to compel expedited discovery now because the SAC’s survival is uncertain and discovery may be unnecessary; recommended denial without prejudice of expedited discovery and an extension of service time to 60 days after the district judge rules on the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should compel expedited discovery to identify Doe defendants | Need immediate identifying info to properly name and serve Doe defendants | Opposes compelled discovery now; will provide info if operative complaint survives motion to dismiss | Denied without prejudice: no good cause to compel now because survival of claims/defendants is uncertain |
| Whether defendants should be dismissed for failure to timely serve under Rule 4(m) | Plaintiffs sought discovery and argue delay was due to unknown identities | Defendants assert claims are inadequately pleaded and proffered conditional cooperation | Magistrate recommends not dismissing originally named Doe defendants; treat them with same extension as other defendants to promote efficiency |
| Proper service deadline for defendants named in the SAC (post-Dec 1, 2015 rule change) | Plaintiffs believed a later service date (argued April 27, 2016) | Defendants note SAC filed after Rule 4(m) amendment so 90-day period applies | Court applies 90-day period; SAC defendants’ service period expires March 28, 2016; recommends extending service to 60 days after ruling on motion to dismiss |
| Whether court should grant an extension of time to serve if discovery is denied | Plaintiffs request extension to serve once identities obtained | Defendants don’t oppose extension and offer conditional discovery after motion-to-dismiss resolution | Court recommends extending service deadline to 60 days from date of district judge’s order on the motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kansas, 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006) (Rule 4(m) period not restarted by filing an amended complaint for originally named defendants)
- McGuckin v. United States, 918 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1990) (service period for newly named defendant begins after filing of amended complaint)
- Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court must grant extension for good cause but may extend even without good cause under Rule 4(m))
- Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 4(m) permits extension of time to serve after the prescribed period)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil litigant’s failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation may waive appellate arguments)