Hicks v. Dollar General Market

Filing 25

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 20 Dollar General's motion to quash service is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hicks has until 8/16/17, to properly serve Dolgen Midwest, LLC d/b/a Dollar General with a copy of the amended complaint and summons. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Natasha Hicks,

5

Plaintiff

6

Order Granting Motion to Quash Service
and Extending Time to Serve Process

v.

7

2:15-cv-00405-JAD-PAL

Dollar General Market,

[ECF No. 20]

8

Defendant

9
10

Pro se plaintiff Natasha Hicks sues Dollar General Market for harassment that she

11

allegedly suffered while working at Dollar General store in Las Vegas, Nevada.1 Hicks filed

12

proof purporting that she served Dollar General with process through “Coddy Manager.”2 Dollar

13

General now moves to quash, arguing that it is incorrectly identified as Dollar General

14

Market—it should be Dolgen Midwest, LLC d/b/a Dollar General—and that it was not properly

15

served with process.3 Hicks did not respond to the motion.

16

I grant Dollar General’s motion for two reasons. First, Hicks’s failure to file points and

17

authorities in response to the motion “constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”4

18

Second, Dollar General’s motion to quash is meritorious. Rule 4(h) of the federal rules of civil

19

procedure provides that a corporation must be served “by delivering a copy of the summons and

20

of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by

21

appointment or by law to receive service of process . . . .”5 Hicks did not do this; instead, she

22
23
24
1

ECF No. 11.

2

ECF No. 19-1.

27

3

ECF No. 20.

28

4

LR 7-2(d).

5

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(h)(1)(B).

25
26

1

served someone named “Coddy” who is identified as a “Manager.”6 This was not proper service

2

under either the federal rule or the Nevada rule.7

3

Hicks is not relieved of her obligation to comply with the rules and procedures of this

4

court simply because she has not retained, or cannot afford to retain, an attorney to represent her.8

5

I recognize that the proper entity to name in this case might be opaque to a pro se plaintiff, and

6

that the motion to quash likely clarified that Dolgen Midwest, LLC is registered to do business in

7

Nevada as Dollar General.9 I therefore give Hicks an additional 30 days to properly serve this

8

defendant.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Dollar General’s motion to quash service

10

[ECF No. 20] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hicks has until August 16,

11

2017, to properly serve Dolgen Midwest, LLC d/b/a Dollar General with a copy of the amended

12

complaint and summons. Failure to do so will result in this case being dismissed without further

13

notice. Hicks must submit a new summons to the Clerk of Court bearing the correct name and

14

address for this defendant. Hicks is cautioned that the applicable procedural rules require process

15

to be personally served on the defendant or its authorized agent; service by mail or a package-

16

delivery company is not sufficient.

17

DATED: July 17, 2017.

18

_______________________________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey

19
20
21

6

ECF No. 19-1.

22
7

23
24
25
26
27
28

FRCP 4(h)(1)(A) authorizes process to be served on a corporation by following state law for
doing so. Nevada’s applicable rule mirrors FRCP 4(h)(1)(B). See Nev. R. Civ. Proc. 4(d)(1).
8

See e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings
liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”); Jacobsen v. Filler,
790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (“pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be
treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record”).
9

The motion to quash also clarified that CSC Services of Nevada, Inc. is authorized to accept
service of process on behalf of this defendant. ECF No. 19-1.
2