Flickinger v. Castillo
5:24-cv-02915
N.D. Cal.Aug 12, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Jason Archie Flickinger, proceeding pro se, filed suit against multiple individuals and Mexican government entities for reasons not specified in the motion.
- The suit was filed on May 14, 2024, with subsequent attempts to amend the complaint and serve 37 Defendants.
- Plaintiff attempted, unsuccessfully, to serve Defendants through various means, including electronic communications and personal delivery.
- Plaintiff sought an ex parte order both to extend his deadline for service (which is generally 90 days after filing in U.S. cases) and to permit alternative service via website publication.
- The court reviewed the motion without oral argument, as permitted by local rules.
- The court distinguishes between Defendants inside the U.S. (subject to Rule 4(m)'s 90-day period) and those abroad (for whom there is no fixed service deadline).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extension of time to serve U.S. defendants | He diligently tried to serve but failed and needs more time | Not directly presented | Court grants extension for U.S. defendants until October 14, 2024 |
| Applicability of 90-day service deadline for foreign defendants | Asks for more time; argues deadline should be flexible | Not directly presented | Court holds 90-day deadline does not apply to foreign defendants |
| Alternative service by website publication | Requests leave to serve via his website, claiming Defendants are aware of it | Not directly presented | Request denied due to lack of sufficient evidence; may renew with proof of diligent service attempts and that website will provide notice |
| Sufficiency of evidence showing diligent service attempts | Bare assertions of effort, no documentary evidence | Not directly presented | Court finds insufficient evidence of diligence, denying alternative service for now |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (explains criteria for court-directed alternative service abroad)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court has discretion over alternative service)
- Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for good cause on failed service)