Quansah v. Del Coronado Apartments
5:16-cv-05667
N.D. Cal.May 2, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth B. Quansah, Jr. sued Del Coronado Apartments and the City of San Jose under federal civil‑rights statutes and various state tort claims after being forcibly removed from his apartment and allegedly injured.
- Complaint alleges officers Lee and Harris used excessive force during a nighttime removal; Del Coronado allegedly changed the apartment lock and a person made anti‑foreigner remarks.
- Del Coronado Apartments moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). The City of San Jose had not appeared and service on it was also questioned.
- The only proof of service in the record was an affidavit showing certified mail to “The President/Manager” of Del Coronado and a return receipt signed by an unknown person; no waiver form was returned.
- The court found mail to a corporate address or uncertified person insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1) and applicable California service rules for government entities, concluding personal jurisdiction was not perfected.
- The court granted Del Coronado’s motion to dismiss (service quashed), quashed service on the City, and extended the Rule 4(m) deadline to May 19, 2017 for proper re‑service; warned that failure to re‑serve would result in dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valid service on Del Coronado Apartments | Mail and affidavit suffice to effect service | Service by mail to corporate address is insufficient; no authorized agent shown | Service invalid; personal jurisdiction not perfected; service quashed |
| Valid service on City of San Jose | Mail to City/Police Chief or City Attorney was adequate | Service did not follow Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2) or California procedures (who/how) | Service invalid under Rule 4(j)(2) and state law; service quashed |
| Burden of proof on service | Plaintiff asserts service was effected | Defendant challenges mode/method; burden on plaintiff to prove proper service | Plaintiff failed to meet burden; dismissal appropriate under Rule 12(b)(5) |
| Relief and effect of deficiency | Request to proceed on merits | Defendant seeks dismissal/quash of insufficient service | Court granted motion to dismiss/quash service but extended Rule 4(m) deadline for re‑service by specified date |
Key Cases Cited
- Direct Mail Specialists v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (service of process is prerequisite to court’s jurisdiction over a defendant)
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Mitchell Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1999) (service of process is fundamental to invoking court’s power)
- Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1987) (mere notice of lawsuit does not substitute for valid service)
- Grand Entm’t Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1993) (party claiming service must prove its validity when challenged)
- S.J. v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 470 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2006) (court may dismiss or quash insufficient service)
- Larsen v. Mayo Med. Ctr., 218 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2000) (service by mail to general corporate address is not adequate under Rule 4(h))
- In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1999) (court must consider service status before entering default judgment)