Shaw v. Garcia

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 19, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-05826
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAURENCE JAY SHAW, Case No. 24-cv-05826-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF 9 v. PROCESS

10 EDWIN DARIO MANZANO GARCIA, et Re: Dkt. No. 13 al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 In August 2024, pro se Plaintiff Laurence Jay Shaw filed an application for a temporary 14 restraining order (“TRO”). See Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Edwin Dario 15 Manzano Garcia and Veronica Rosibel Manzano Garcia were previously employees of Plaintiff’s 16 company in Guatemala. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that in October 2023, they 17 “seized” online and physical assets from Plaintiff’s company, and began operating their own 18 “counterfeit” company, Defendant Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC. Id. Plaintiff seeks a TRO 19 preventing Defendants from using Plaintiff’s intellectual property and requiring Defendants to 20 provide Plaintiff re-access to his email and online accounts. See Dkt. No. 4. 21 The Court found that Plaintiff did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 65 for a TRO 22 without notice to the adverse party. See Dkt. No. 10. The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to 23 serve the complaint, the application for a TRO, and the Court’s order on Defendants by September 24 10, 2024, and to file a declaration and any supporting proof confirming that this was done by 25 September 11, 2024. See id. In response, Plaintiff has filed a motion for alternative service. Dkt. 26 No. 13. In it, Plaintiff explains that Defendants still reside in Guatemala, and that service under 27 the applicable treaty may “require[] months” and “cause undue delay.” Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff 1 Guatemalan law firm to serve process by personally serving Defendants at their home or work. 2 Id. at ¶¶ 9–11. 3 As Plaintiff acknowledges, Guatemala is a signatory to the Inter-American Service 4 Convention and Additional Protocol (“IACAP”), which details a specific process for serving 5 Defendants. Although the IACAP process to serve Defendants may be time-intensive, the Court 6 does not find this to be a sufficient reason to fashion a new protocol. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1) 7 (providing for service of an individual in a foreign country “by any internationally agreed means 8 of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice . . . .”). The Court therefore DENIES the 9 motion for alternative service. Dkt. No. 13. 10 Before the Court could issue an order addressing Plaintiff’s request for alternative service, 11 Plaintiff filed two certificates of service. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. He purports to have served the 12 individual Defendants through a lawyer and registered notary in Guatemala, who left the 13 documents at their door. See Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff also purports to have served Defendant 14 Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC through a registered agent in New Mexico. See Dkt. No. 14. 15 Despite any concerns the Court may have with the sufficiency of this service, at least 16 Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia appears to have received actual notice of this lawsuit. 17 He filed a document styled as an “answer” to the complaint. Dkt. No. 16. On its face the 18 document states that it “is filed by Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia and Knightsbridge 19 Sleep Solutions LLC.” Id. at 1. He also appears to have filed an “opposition” to the TRO on 20 behalf of Defendant Veronica Rosibel Manzano Garcia. See Dkt. No. 18. The Court notes that as 21 a pro se party, Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia is not permitted to represent or file 22 documents on behalf of anyone else. See Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) 23 (“[A] litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than 24 himself.”); cf. Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding 25 that “a parent may not proceed pro se on her children’s behalf”). The document also appears to be 26 in Spanish rather than English. The Court therefore STRIKES Dkt. No. 18 and directs the Clerk 27 to remove it from the docket. Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia may re-file the document 1 The Court further notes that Plaintiff is not relieved of the obligation to properly serve Mr. 2 Garcia just because Mr. Garcia appears to have received the court documents left at his door. See 3 Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[N]either actual notice, nor simply 4 || naming the person in the caption of the complaint, will subject defendants to personal jurisdiction 5 if service was not made in substantial compliance with Rule 4.”). As noted above, Mr. Garcia was 6 || not served properly under the IACAP and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(f)(1) and the 7 Court did not approve any alternative means of service. “A federal court is without personal 8 || jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. 9 P. 4.” Id. at 974-75 (quotations omitted). 10 The Court finds that additional time to serve the individual Defendants is warranted under 11 the circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall serve the individual Defendants under the IACAP 12 || by January 16, 2025. By January 17, 2025, Plaintiff must file a declaration and any supporting 5 13 proof confirming that this was done, or alternatively, a status report (1) detailing where his efforts 14 stand to serve Defendants and (2) how much additional time he needs to serve them. The Court 3 15 || will hold the application for a TRO, Dkt. No. 4, in abeyance until Defendants have been properly 16 served. 3 17 The parties are encouraged to seek assistance at the Legal Help Center, which provides 18 free information and limited-scope legal assistance to pro se litigants. More information about the 19 Legal Help Center is provided at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help. Appointments may be 20 || scheduled either over the phone at (415) 782-8982 or by email at 21 federalprobonoproject @ sfbar.org. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: 9/19/2024 24 Aaspprert □ Udy i 25 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 26 27 28