Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc.

Filing 162

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 12/15/23 DENYING without prejudice 156 Motion for Default Judgment. (Licea Chavez, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKEY HENRY, et al.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, Inc.,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00280-DAD-JDP
ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
ECF No. 156

16
17
18

In this class action lawsuit brought by truck drivers who worked for defendant Central

19

Freight Lines, Inc., plaintiffs Rickey Henry, Kawaski Corley, Fernando Garcia, Jose de Jesus

20

Moreno, and Michael Waldman allege that defendant committed numerous violations of the

21

California Labor Code by intentionally misclassifying them as independent contractors to

22

withhold wages and other benefits. ECF No. 153. After defense counsel withdrew and defendant

23

failed to obtain replacement counsel, the Clerk of Court entered default. ECF Nos. 132, 143, &

24

152. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint and then moved for entry of

25

default judgment. ECF Nos. 153 & 156.

26

Plaintiffs’ motion was before the court for hearing on December 1, 2022. Defendant did

27

not appear. I instructed plaintiffs to file further briefing addressing, among other things, whether

28

the second amended complaint had been properly served on defendant. ECF No. 159. Plaintiffs
1

1

submitted a brief, ECF No. 160, but it fails to establish adequacy of service. I will deny

2

plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice.

3
4

Relevant Procedural History
In October 2015, plaintiff Henry commenced this lawsuit by filing a class action

5

complaint in state court alleging claims of unfair competition and labor code violations. ECF No.

6

1-5. Defendant removed the case to federal court and later filed an answer to plaintiff’s first

7

amended complaint. ECF Nos. 1 & 46.

8
9

On January 31, 2022, after years of litigation, defense counsel moved to withdraw as
defendant’s attorney, arguing that the attorney-client relationship had broken down as defendant

10

was closing its business and was no longer providing counsel with necessary information or

11

paying its legal fees. ECF No. 130; ECF No. 130-1 at 2. In accordance with Local Rule 182(d),

12

counsel identified defendant’s general counsel, James Mahoney, as the “primary contact” for

13

defendant, and provided defendant’s current or last known mailing address: 5601 West Waco

14

Drive, Waco, TX 76710.1 ECF No. 130-2 at 3. Counsel also provided Mr. Mahoney’s current or

15

last known email address and phone number. Id.

16

On February 22, 2022, the district judge granted defense counsel’s motion and ordered

17

defendant to obtain replacement counsel within forty-five days, noting that defendant, a

18

corporation, was barred from appearing without an attorney.2 ECF No. 132. Defense counsel

19

sent Mr. Mahoney a copy of the district judge’s ruling by email and regular mail. ECF No. 133.

20

After defendant failed to retain substitute counsel within the allotted time, plaintiff Henry

21

moved to strike defendant’s answer and enter default. ECF No. 140. The district judge granted

22

the motion, finding that defendant had failed to secure representation and was prohibited from

23

appearing in court, and instructed the clerk’s office to enter default. ECF No. 143. On September

24
1

25
26
27
28

Under Local Rule 182(d), an attorney must obtain leave of court pursuant to a noticed
motion when seeking to withdraw if the client would be left without representation. Additionally,
the attorney “shall provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of
the client.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d).
2
“It is a longstanding rule that ‘[c]corporations and other unincorporated associations
must appear in court through an attorney.’” D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366
F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a) (“A
corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.”).
2

1

9, 2022, the Clerk of Court entered default. ECF No. 152.

2

On September 13, 2022, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added Mr.

3

Corley, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Moreno, and Mr. Waldman as named plaintiffs. ECF No. 153. The

4

certificate of service states that the amended pleading was mailed on September 13, 2022, to the

5

following address: Cogency Global Inc., 1325 J Street Ste 1550, Sacramento, CA 95814. Id. at

6

47.

7

On October 18, 2022, plaintiffs moved for entry of default judgment under Federal Rule

8

of Civil Procedure 55(b), seeking “relief in the form requested in the [second amended

9

complaint], namely entry of judgment for unpaid wages and associated penalties” for each named

10

plaintiff. ECF No. 156-1 at 10; see also ECF No. 156 at 4. The certificate of service shows that

11

plaintiffs mailed a copy of the motion to Cogency Global. ECF No. 156-1 at 21. Defendant did

12

not file an opposition and did not appear at the December 1, 2022 hearing on the motion. On

13

January 17, 2023, plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief addressing, among other issues, the

14

adequacy of service of the second amended complaint. ECF No. 160.

15
16
17

Service of Process
As a preliminary matter, the court must consider whether plaintiffs properly served the
amended pleading on defendant.

18

Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of pleadings filed after the

19

original complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(B). Rule 5(b)(2) lists the various ways service can be

20

made, including by “mailing it to the person’s last known address—in which event service is

21

complete upon mailing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Service is not required, however, if the

22

party to be served “is in default for failing to appear” and the pleading does not assert a new claim

23

for relief against the defaulting party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(2). But when the default is for failure

24

to appear and the pleading does raise a new claim, service must be made pursuant to Rule 4,

25

which governs service of process when an action is commenced. Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

26

Plaintiffs’ argument that the second amended complaint was properly served is two-fold.

27

First, plaintiffs assert that they completed service by mailing a copy to defendant’s registered

28

agent for service of process, Cogency Global, and by filing the amended pleading via the court’s
3

1

electronic filing system. Second, plaintiffs contend that their attempts at service went well

2

beyond what was required, as under Rule 5(a)(2) they “need not have served the amended

3

pleading on the party in default.” See ECF No. 160 at 5-6.

4

The undersigned rejects plaintiffs’ contention that Rule 5(a)(2) eliminated the need to

5

effect service of process. As discussed above, the function of Rule 5(a)(2) is to excuse service

6

when a party is in default for failing to appear. Here, the district judge found that defendant

7

defaulted not for failing to appear, but for failing to secure new counsel following defense

8

counsel’s withdrawal. ECF No. 143. The docket further undermines plaintiffs’ position, as

9

defendant not only filed an answer to the first amended complaint and but also actively

10

participated in this litigation by attending mediations, conducting discovery, and moving for

11

summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 46 & 72. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ assertion that Rule 5(a)(2)

12

applies is inapposite. Having appeared, defendant was entitled to receive service of the amended

13

pleading in accordance with Rule 5(b)(2). See Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC v. Winbond

14

Elecs. Corp., 2010 WL 3489400, at *5 (D. Utah Sept. 1, 2010) (noting Rule 5(a)(2)’s service

15

exception not applicable when party appeared before defaulting) (citations omitted); O’Halloren

16

v. Quarzite Carrara, 129 F.R.D. 24, 24-25 (D. Mass. 1990) (denying motion to amend complaint

17

for failure to serve because defaulted defendant had appeared and was “entitled to service of

18

pleadings to the same extent as a party not in default”); see also 1 James Wm. Moore et al.,

19

Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil § 5.03 [3] (2023) (“A party who appears and subsequently

20

defaults continues to be entitled to the service of all pleadings and papers under Rule 5. An

21

appearance at any time during the action requires service on that party of all subsequent pleadings

22

and papers regardless of the defaulting party’s absence at any or all later stages of the action.”)

23

(footnotes omitted).3

24

Rule 5 creates “a dichotomy . . . between parties in default for failure to appear and
parties in all other type defaults (such as parties who appeared but subsequently defaulted).” 1
James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil § 5.03 [2] (2023) (footnote omitted).
Parties in the former group “are not entitled to be notified of any progress regarding the
proceedings concerning them because they have never submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of
the court,” while parties who appeared and then defaulted “must be informed of such progress
because they have submitted themselves to the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. (footnotes omitted).
3

25
26
27
28

4

1

The court next considers whether plaintiffs’ service attempts satisfied Rule 5. Plaintiffs

2

are correct that under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), service of an amended pleading is complete at the time it is

3

mailed to a party’s last known address. When plaintiffs mailed the second amended complaint on

4

September 13, 2022, however, they did not use defendant’s last known address—in Waco,

5

Texas—which defense counsel provided in the motion seeking leave to withdraw. Instead, the

6

certificate of service states that plaintiffs mailed the amended pleading to Cogency Global at an

7

address in Sacramento. ECF No. 153 at 47.

8
9

A review of defendant’s business entity profile and related documentation retrieved from
the California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Cogency Global was no longer

10

defendant’s designated agent for service of process in California at the time the second amended

11

complaint was mailed. Defendant’s status is listed as “Terminated” with an “Inactive Date” of

12

June 24, 2022.4 See California Secretary of State website,

13

https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business (last visited October 17, 2023). A Certificate of

14

Surrender, signed by a corporate officer for defendant and filed on June 24, 2022, with the

15

California Secretary of State, states that defendant “surrender[ed] its rights and authority to

16

transact intrastate business in the State of California” and “revok[ed] its designation of agent for

17

service of process in California.” See California Secretary of State Certificate of Surrender, filed

18

June 24, 2022, https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business. The Certificate also states that

19

defendant consented to have the California Secretary of State accept service of process of any

20

legal documents intended for defendant, and references a P.O. Box address in Waco, Texas, as

21

the mailing address where such documents could be forwarded to defendant. Id. The foregoing

22

information reflects that Cogency Global’s authorization to accept service for defendant ceased

23

when defendant’s business in California terminated on June 24, 2022.

24
25
26
27
28

On this record, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that defendant was properly served
when the second amended complaint was mailed to Cogency Global in September 2022. Neither
The court takes judicial notice of defendant’s entity profile from the California Secretary
of State’s website. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 112 F. Supp.
3d 1011, 1033-34 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (taking judicial notice of business entity profile from the
California Secretary of State’s website).
5
4

1

have plaintiffs shown that they satisfied the service requirement by electronically filing the

2

second amended complaint with the court. The court’s notice of electronic filing reflects only

3

that plaintiffs’ attorneys were notified by email that the amended pleading was filed. There is no

4

indication that any notification was sent to defendant; indeed, the court’s notice instructs that the

5

second amended complaint “must be served conventionally by the filer to: Central Freight Lines,

6

Inc., c/o James Mahoney, General Counsel, 5601 West Waco Drive, Waco, TX 76710.” Nothing

7

in the record suggests that plaintiffs followed this directive to effect proper service.
Based on the above, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment,

8
9

ECF No. 156, is denied without prejudice.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated:
13
14

December 15, 2023
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6