Paulson v. George

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 30, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05491
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RONALD LEE PAULSON, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05491-BHS-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR DEFENDANT 12 v. PRISONER TRANSPORT TO SHOW CAUSE ON OR BEFORE 13 PRISONER TRANSPORT, et al., OCTOBER 14, 2019 14 Defendants. 15 This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 6. On July 24, 16 2019, the Court entered an Order directing service of plaintiff’s complaint, which informed 17 defendants that they had 30 days in which to return a waiver of service of summons and—if they 18 waived service of summons—60 days from date on the notice of lawsuit to serve an answer or 19 motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. See Dkt. 7, at 2. Otherwise, defendants would 20 be personally served, possibly at their own expense. See Dkt. 7, at 2. 21 The Clerk’s Office sent the complaint and Order by first-class mail to all defendants. See 22 Dkt. 7. The Clerk’s Office also sent a copy of the waiver of service of summons form, which 23 informed defendants that failure to file and serve an answer or motion under Rule 12 within 60 24 1 days of July 24, 2019, could result in a judgment being entered against a defendant. See, e.g., 2 Dkt. 9, at 1. Defendant Prisoner Transport did not return a waiver of service of summons. See 3 Dkt. However, defendant Prisoner Transport entered an appearance on August 19, 2019 (see 4 Dkt. 12; see also Dkts. 13, 14) and later filed a notice of withdrawal of two of its three counsel

5 and a corporate disclosure statement. See Dkts. 15, 17. None of the appearances entered by 6 defendant Prisoner Transport’s counsel reserved issues of sufficiency of service or personal 7 jurisdiction. See Dkt. 12, at 1; Dkt. 13, at 1; Dkt. 14, at 1. Defendant Prisoner Transport has not 8 otherwise taken action in this matter—including filing a timely answer or motion under Rule 12. 9 The Ninth Circuit has stated that “[a] general appearance or responsive pleading by a 10 defendant that fails to dispute personal jurisdiction will waive any defect in service or personal 11 jurisdiction.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, defendant Prisoner 12 Transport is hereby ordered to show cause regarding its failure to file a timely answer or motion 13 under Rule 12 in this matter. 14 Defendant Prisoner Transport may satisfy this Order by filing a motion under Rule 12 or

15 answer to the complaint. Prisoner Transport may also satisfy this Order by showing cause that 16 its appearance in this matter has not waived any defect in service, so that personal service is 17 appropriate—including any argument that personal service should not be at Prisoner Transport’s 18 expense. In either event, Prisoner Transport must take action in response to this Order on or 19 before October 14, 2019. The Clerk’s Office will update the docket accordingly. 20 Dated this 30th day of September, 2019. 21 A 22 J. Richard Creatura 23 United States Magistrate Judge