Sai v. Nielsen
4:16-cv-01024
N.D. Cal.Jun 6, 2017Background
- Sai filed this action on February 29, 2016 and filed an amended complaint on February 9, 2017.
- The Court directed Sai to provide service addresses for non-individual defendants; Sai provided an address for Covenant listing its general counsel James E. Mahoney at a law firm address in Chicago.
- The U.S. Marshal served the complaint on April 5, 2017 on Daisy Juarez, a receptionist at the law firm; neither Juarez nor Mahoney claim authority to accept service for Covenant.
- Covenant moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process or, alternatively, to quash service; Sai opposed and filed a cross-motion with several ancillary requests.
- The Court found service ineffective because the individuals served were not authorized agents under the applicable tests and granted Covenant’s motion to quash rather than dismiss.
- The Court ordered Sai to provide a new address for Covenant by June 21, 2017 for re-service or Covenant would be dismissed; the docket name was amended to "Covenant Aviation Security, LLC."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process was sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 | Service on the receptionist or general counsel is adequate because service may be made on a representative "integrated with the organization" who will know what to do with the papers | Service was insufficient because neither the receptionist nor general counsel was authorized to accept service for Covenant | Service was insufficient; neither person was an officer, managing agent, or authorized agent to accept service |
| Whether an attorney-client relationship alone confers authority to accept service | Mahoney’s role as general counsel implies authority to accept service | Attorney-client relationship alone does not create authority to accept service absent evidence of specific authority | Attorney-client relationship alone is insufficient; record shows Mahoney lacked authority |
| Whether to dismiss the defendant or quash service | Sai sought preservation of the claim and re-service | Covenant requested dismissal or, alternatively, quashing of service | Court exercised discretion to quash service and preserve the case for possible proper service |
| Relief on Sai’s procedural requests (name change, telephonic appearance, discovery/protective order) | Various requests including name correction and discovery into Doe identities | Covenant did not oppose name correction; opposed other untimely or premature requests | Granted name change; telephonic appearance already granted but rendering moot; denied discovery/protective order as premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (service may be valid if made on a representative sufficiently integrated with the organization)
- Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat. Bank, 538 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1976) (district court has discretion to dismiss or quash service)
- Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 827 F.2d 1246 (9th Cir. 1987) (service on an attorney is ineffective unless attorney is authorized to accept service)
- United States v. Ziegler Bolt & Parts Co., 111 F.3d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney representation alone does not create authority to accept service)
- Top Form Mills, Inc. v. Sociedad Nationale Industria Applicazioni Viscosa, 428 F. Supp. 1237 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (discussing when service on organizational representatives is sufficient)