Hernandez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. et al

Filing 6

SCREENING ORDER, Order finding service of 5 Complaint appropriate and forwarding service documents to Plaintiff ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/11/2018. (Filing Deadline: 7/6/2018.) (Attachments: # 1 USM Instructions)(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EDWARD HERNANDEZ, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-00211-DAD-EPG SCREENING ORDER ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF (ECF No. 5) 14 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 15 16 On February 14, 2017, Edward Hernandez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis, commenced this action by the filing of a Complaint alleging a variety of state law 18 claims against Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Avis”); Daphne Davis, an employee of Avis (“Davis”); 19 Ford Motor Company, Inc. (“Ford”); Capital One Financial Corporation (“Capital One”); and 20 Asset Retrieval and Investigations, Inc. (“ARI”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1). On 21 December 15, 2017, the Court screened the Complaint, and found that the Complaint only stated 22 claims for breach of contract against Avis and Capital One, defamation against ARI; and 23 intentional infliction of emotional distress against Avis, Davis, and ARI. (ECF No. 4). The 24 screening order directed Plaintiff (1) to notify the Court that he agrees to proceed only on the 25 claims found cognizable in this order, (2) to file an amended complaint within thirty days if he 26 believes that additional facts will establish any additional claims under the applicable legal 27 standards, or (3) to state that he wishes to stand on the Complaint, in which case the Court would 28 issue findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge, recommending that certain 1 1 claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with the order. Id. On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 5). 2 3 The Court has screened the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), and finds that it states a 4 least one cognizable claim against each named defendant. Thus, the Court finds the FAC 5 appropriate for service of process. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 7 a. Avis Budget Group, Inc.; 8 b. Daphne Davis, an employee of Avis Budget Group, Inc.; 9 c. Ford Motor Company, Inc.; d. Capital One Financial Corporation; and 10 e. Asset Retrieval and Investigations, Inc. 11 2. The Clerk of Court shall SEND Plaintiff five (5) USM-285 form, five (5) 12 summons, one (1) Notice of Submission of Documents form, one (1) instruction 13 sheet, and one (1) copy of the First Amended Complaint filed on January 8, 2018, 14 (ECF No. 5); 15 3. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 16 complete the Notice of Submission of Documents form and submit the completed 17 form to the Court with the following documents: 18 a. A completed summons for each named defendant; 19 b. A completed USM-285 form for each named defendant; and 20 c. Six (6) signed copies of the First Amended Complaint filed on January 8, 21 2018; 22 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants, and need not request waiver of 23 service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the 24 United States Marshals Service to serve defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of 25 Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ 2 1 5. The failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?