Laura M Wells et al v. American Polygraph Association et al

Filing 74

ORDER that Defendants' 28 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS PREMATURE. ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 29 Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiffs' 56 Motion to Amend is DENIED AS PREMATURE; Defendants' 59 Motion to Stri ke is GRANTED; Defendants' 71 Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall properly serve the Defendants within 30 days of the date of this Order with the Summons and Amended Complaint and file proof of service. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/21/2013.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 Laura M. Wells; Kelley L. Bradbury; Morgan M. Block; Melanie Haswood; Brian Gilmore; Bradley Ledford; Elie Lahhoud; Timothy Roberts; Elizabeth Trujillo; Devin Brennan; Dean Bausman; William Reynolds; and Nancy Farran, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 No. CV-13-00607-PHX-GMS ORDER Plaintiffs, v. American Polygraph Association; Barry Cushman; Charles Slupski; Pam Shaw; George Baranowski; Robert Peters; Walt Goodson; Jamie McCloughan; Raymond Nelson; Mike Gougler; Vickie T. MurphyCarr; Chad Russell; Gordon L. Vaughan; Donald Krapohl; Robbie S. Bennett; Donnie Dutton; Lisa Jacocks; and Roy Ortiz, Defendants. 21 22 Pending before the Court are several motions: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 23 (Doc. 28), Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29), 24 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Doc. 56), Defendants’ Motion to Strike Service Executed 25 (Doc. 59), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Reply 26 (Doc. 71). For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as 27 moot, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is denied as moot, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is 28 denied as premature, and Defendants’ Motion to Strike is granted. 1 Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiffs’ Affidavit/Proof of Service filed on 2 June 21, 2013. (Doc. 59.) Plaintiffs’ Proof of Service indicates that Plaintiffs served the 3 summons on attorney Whitney M. Harvey, whom Defendants had not authorized to 4 accept service on their behalf as of June 21, 2013. (See Doc. 55.) Service of a complaint 5 on an attorney is ineffective unless the attorney has specific authority to accept service. 6 Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 827 F.2d 1246, 1248–49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs 7 object that Harvey had submitted a notice of appearance as attorney of record for all 8 Defendants on June 4, 2013. (See Doc. 43.) That appearance did not, however, contain 9 any express grant of authority to accept service on behalf of Defendants. The attorney- 10 client relationship by itself is insufficient to convey authority to accept service. Kruska v. 11 Perverted Justice Found. Inc., No. CV-08-0054-PHX-SMM, 2009 WL 4041941 at *2 (D. 12 Ariz. Nov. 16, 2009). Though implied authority to accept service of process is 13 permissible in the Ninth Circuit, an agent’s authority to act cannot be established solely 14 though the agent’s actions; rather, the authority must be established by an act of the 15 principal. In re Focus Media Inc., 387 F.3d 1077, 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, there 16 is no evidence of any act by Defendants indicating that Harvey had authority to accept 17 service of process. The fact that Harvey requested copies of notices and pleadings to be 18 sent to her does not implicate Defendants, who have not by their actions or otherwise 19 given Harvey permission to accept service on their behalf. Thus, Plaintiffs’ service of 20 process by mailing the Complaint to Harvey was insufficient, and Defendants’ Motion to 21 Strike is granted. 22 Because Plaintiffs have not yet effectuated service on Defendants, their Motion to 23 Amend is premature, as is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the as-yet unserved Complaint. 24 Because the Motion to Dismiss is premature, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Motion to 25 Dismiss and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to their Reply are denied 26 as moot. 27 28 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28) is DENIED AS PREMATURE. -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Doc. 56) is DENIED AS PREMATURE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Service Executed (Doc. 59) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Response (Doc. 71) is DENIED AS MOOT. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall properly serve the Defendants 10 within 30 days of the date of this Order with the Summons and Amended Complaint1 11 and file proof of service. 12 Dated this 21st day of August, 2013. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Amended Complaint filed on May 1, 2013 (Doc. 24) is the “operative complaint” in this matter. -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?