Thomas v. New Leaders for New Schools
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145586
E.D. La.2011Background
- Thomas, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, filed her complaint on July 25, 2011 alleging age discrimination under the ADEA.
- New Leaders is a national nonprofit that runs the Aspiring Principals Program; program participants are not employed by New Leaders but by schools or districts.
- Thomas submitted two applications in 2008; both were denied for alleged qualification deficiencies.
- The U.S. Marshal attempted service at New Leaders’ address (200 Broadway Street) after the court directed service, but the initial attempt failed to identify a proper agent.
- A U.S. Marshal eventually served a person identified as ‘New Leaders Rep’ who turns out to be a former program participant with no affiliation as an agent for service.
- Ward, New Leaders’ interim executive director, testified that she is not an employee or agent authorized to receive service, undermining valid service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process was properly effected | Thomas reasonably relied on the Marshal to serve the defendant. | New Leaders was not properly served because the purported agent lacked authority. | Service not properly effected; court to quash and allow re-service |
| Whether the court should dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) or 12(b)(6) | Service defects should be cured; otherwise no dismissal. | If service is defective, case must be dismissed or claims lacking proper employer status dismissed. | Court should quash service and permit re-service; does not reach 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, 685 F.2d 434 (5th Cir.1981) (void when service of process is invalid; burden on moving party to prove validity)
- Lindsey v. U.S. R.R. Retirement Bd., 101 F.3d 444 (5th Cir.1996) (court may order marshal service for indigent plaintiffs; failure not entirely fault of plaintiff)
- Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772 (5th Cir.1999) (well-pleaded facts reviewed liberally for pro se plaintiffs)
- Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190 (5th Cir.1996) (dismissal appropriate when complaint facially fails to state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (claims must contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir.2009) (Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applied in Fifth Circuit)
- People’s United Equip. Fin. Corp. v. Hartmann, 447 Fed.Appx. 522 (5th Cir.2011) (signed return of service is prima facie evidence of valid service; rebuttable)