Everett Paul Hailey v. Brett Christian Harrison

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01006
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVERETT PAUL HAILEY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01006-FLA (PVCx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. REGARDING SUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED 14 COMPLAINT BRETT CHRISTIAN HARRISON, 15 et al., 16 Defendant. 17

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 On September 12, 2024, Plaintiff Everett Paul Hailey (“Plaintiff”) filed a First 3 Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting claims against Defendant Brett Christian 4 Harrison (“Defendant”), who is allegedly a resident and citizen of Ventura County, 5 California. Dkt. 18 ¶ 5. Plaintiff filed Proof of Service of the FAC (“Proof of 6 Service”) on Defendant on November 25, 2024.1 Dkt. 20. 7 When individuals to be served are located within a judicial district of the United 8 States, they may be served by: 9 (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought 10 in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or 11 (2) doing any of the following: 12 (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to 13 the individual personally; 14 (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who 15 resides there; or 16 (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by 17 appointment or by law to receive service of process. 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) (“Rule 4(e)”). Rule 4(e)(2) does not authorize service by mail. 19 See Ingram v. S.F. Police Dept., Case No. 4:13-cv-00224-CW, 2013 WL 1701754, at 20 *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013). 21 Here, the Proof of Service states Defendant was served by United States Mail 22 through “Chase S. – Manager – Person Authorized to Accept,” at 7349 N Via Paseo 23 del Sur Ste 515-188, Scottsdale, AZ 85258-3765. Dkt. 20 at 1–2. Because Plaintiff 24 did not submit a declaration or other evidence to support his contention that Chase S. 25

26 1 The court cites documents by the page numbers added by the court’s CM/ECF 27 System, rather than any page numbers included natively. 28 | | was authorized to accept service of process for Defendant, the court is unable to 2 | conclude Defendant was served properly with the summons and the operative FAC. 3 | Nor does Plaintiff’s submitted declarations—in connection with the Proof of Service 4 | of the Complaint (Dkt. 10), the Proof of Service of the FAC (Dkt. 19), the Application 5 | for Clerk’s Entry of Default (Dkt. 22-1), and the Motion for Default Judgment (Dkts. 6 | 24-2, 24-3}—establish that Defendant was served properly.” 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 8 | fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why the court should not vacate the 9 | Entry of Default (Dkt. 23) for failure to complete proper service of process. Plaintiff 10 | is encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the 11 | court’s Order. Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. Plaintiffs 12 | failure to respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in the court vacating 13 | the Entry of Default and denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Default 14 | Judgment (Dkt. 24), without further notice from the court. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 | Dated: July 9, 2025 19 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 . . To the extent Plaintiff contends Defendant was properly served pursuant to state law, 26 | see Dkt. 9 at 1 (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17538.5), Plaintiff does not cite any 27 | legal authority to establish that this statute applies to a commercial mail receiving agency located outside of California. Plaintiff, thus, fails to establish service was 28 completed properly on this basis.