Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Labonte II

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Service of Process by Registered Process Server, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/21/2012. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02164-LJO-SKO

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR SERVICE OF
PROCESS BY REGISTERED
PROCESS SERVER

v.

14
15

ALBERT JOSEPH LABONTE II,
INDIVIDUALLY and d/b/a TONY
ROMAS,

(Doc. No. 21)

16
Defendant.
17
/
18
19

I. INTRODUCTION

20

On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Judgment Creditor")

21

filed a motion for service by a registered process server pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22

4.1(a). (Doc. 21.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED without prejudice.

23

II. DISCUSSION

24

Plaintiff filed this action on November 19, 2010. (Doc. 1.) Default judgment was entered

25

against Defendant on May 24, 2011 (Doc. 16), and the case was administratively closed. On June

26

20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for service by a registered process server, pursuant to Federal Rule

27

of Civil Procedure 4.1, to serve writs issued in this matter.

28

///

1

Rule 4.1(a) provides as follows:

2

4

(a) In General. Process–other than a summons under Rule 4 or a subpoena under
Rule 45– must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person
specially appointed for that purpose. It may be served anywhere within the territorial
limits of the state where the district court is located and, if authorized by a federal
statute, beyond those limits. Proof of service must be made under Rule 4(l).

5

Here, Plaintiff seeks a court order appointing a registered process server to serve writs following

6

judgment. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff's motion for an order permitting service by a registered process server

7

specifically references Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1, but does not provide the identity of the

8

registered process server Plaintiff seeks the Court to approve and appoint. The Court notes that,

9

while Plaintiff does not seek court appointment of a registered process server to levy under a writ

10

of execution, the failure to identify the individual to be appointed as a registered process server

11

leaves the Court with insufficient information to grant the request. Moreover, Plaintiff does not

12

provide citation to the correct Local Rules ("Local Rules") for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

13

District of California ("Eastern District") or indicate whether any California law applies to the

14

appointment of a registered process server under these circumstances.1 In sum, Plaintiff's motion

15

is insufficient.

3

16

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

17

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of a registered process

18

server is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request and providing additional information

19

as discussed above.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
ie14hj

June 21, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff inconsistently cites two different Local Rules that are not operative in the Eastern District.

2