Harris v. Kessler et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, Granting 76 MOTION to Quash Service filed by Identity Evropa; For the reasons stated, Identity Evropa's Motion to Dismiss for improper service is GRANTED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to attempt to correct service pursuant to California Corporation Code § 2011(b), within fourteen (14) days. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/31/2021. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(hnw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CASE NO. 3:19-cv-00046
JASON KESSLER, et al.,
JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON
Defendant Identity Evropa, Inc. has entered a special appearance and filed a motion to
quash service and dismiss the complaint against it on grounds of improper service. Dkt. 76
(“Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff has filed proof of service, stating that on February 18, 2020,
Identity Evropa was served with the summons and copy of the complaint, and service was made
upon Identity Evropa care of “LegalZoom.com, Inc. Registered Agent,” at an address in
California. Dkt. 54 (affidavit of service).
In its Motion to Dismiss, Identity Evropa asserts that LegalZoom had resigned as its
agent for service on December 7, 2017, and that Identity Evropa was dissolved as a California
corporation on September 13, 2018. Dkt. 76 at 3. It attaches documentation from the California
Secretary of State website substantiating those facts. Dkt. 76-1 at 3. Identity Evropa therefore
argues that it could not be served in the manner Plaintiff attempted. Id. In response, Plaintiff does
not argue that service was proper on LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) as Identity Evropa’s
registered agent. Rather, Plaintiff only argues that if “the Court rules that service should be
quashed, Plaintiff’s counsel requests that the Court allow counsel to effect service properly on
the Defendant.” Dkt. 82 at 15.
The Motion to Dismiss for insufficient service of process is a motion seeking relief
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A federal court cannot
exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant without proper service of process. Omni Capital
Int’l, Ltd. v. Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987); Hawkins v. i-TV Digitalis Tavkozlesi zrt.,
935 F.3d 211, 228–29 (4th Cir. 2019).
The methods of serving a corporation are set forth in Rule 4(h) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Rule 4(h)(1) provides that service on a corporation in the United States may be
accomplished “in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual,” or “by
delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general
agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process ….”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). Under Rule 4(e)(1), service may be effected pursuant to “state law for
serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the
district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff could have served Identity Evropa under any of these methods: Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1),
the service rules of Virginia as the state in which the court sits, or the service rules of California,
the state where service was made.
Plaintiff has not properly served Identity Evropa under any of these possible methods of
service. Identity Evropa relies heavily on the fact that it was dissolved in 2018 before Plaintiff
attempted to serve it with process, but that is not the main impediment to service. While Identity
Evropa is a now-dissolved California corporation, California law does not “permit a dissolved
corporation to make its final exit so long as obligations resulting from its predissolution activities
remain undischarged.” Penasquitos, Inc. v. Superior Court, 812 P.2d 154, 162 (Cal. 1991).
Indeed “there is no legal barrier to suit against a dissolved corporation itself for injury or damage
that is caused by the corporations predissolution activities” even if it is “discovered after the
dissolution.” Id. California Corporations Code § 2011(b) specifically describes the methods of
service upon dissolved corporations:
Summons or other process against such a [dissolved] corporation may be served by
delivering a copy thereof to an officer, director or person having charge of its assets
or, if no such person can be found, to any agent upon whom process might be served
at the time of dissolution. If none of such persons can be found with due diligence
and it is so shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court, then the court may
make an order that summons or other process be served upon the dissolved
corporation by personally delivering a copy thereof, together with a copy of the
order, to the Secretary of State or an assistant to the deputy secretary of state.
Service in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the
process to the Secretary of State.
Cal. Corp. Code § 2011(b) (emphasis added); Penasquitos, 812 P.2d at 157 n.4.
Plaintiff did not try to serve any “officer, director or person having charge” of the assets
of Identity Evropa. Rather, Plaintiff tried to serve LegalZoom, which had been Identity Evropa’s
registered agent. If no “officer, director, or person having charge” of its assets could be found,
and, critically, LegalZoom had continued to serve as Identity Evropa’s registered agent when the
corporation dissolved on September 13, 2018, service on LegalZoom would have been proper
under California law. See Cal. Corp. Code § 2011(b) (providing for service upon “any agent
upon whom process might be served at the time of dissolution”); Pulte Homes Corp. v. Williams
Mech., Inc., 2 Cal. App. 5th 267, 273–74, 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 244, 249–50 (2016) (holding that
service on attorney who was agent for dissolved corporation at time of dissolution constituted
“actual notice” on the corporation, “because the corporation has expressly held that person out to
the world as authorized to receive notice of actions”).
However, LegalZoom was not Identity Evropa’s registered agent when it dissolved on
September 13, 2018. LegalZoom had resigned as its agent for service of process more than nine
months earlier—on December 7, 2017. Dkt. 76-1 at 5. The California Secretary of State business
search record for Identity Evropa similarly reflects “agent resigned” on December 7, 2017.
Dkt. 76-1 at 3. And, although the search record for Identity Evropa retains “LegalZoom.com,
Inc.” next to “Agent for Service of Process,” there is also a disclaimer for how to find “the most
current California registered Corporate Agent for Service of Process address and authorized
employee(s) information.” Id. Because LegalZoom had long since stopped being Identity
Evropa’s registered agent before the entity dissolved, serviced upon Identity Evropa through
LegalZoom did not comport with California Corporation Code § 2011(b) and was therefore
Plaintiff shall have the opportunity to attempt to serve Identity Evropa under California
Corporation Code § 2011(b) by serving an officer, director or person having charge of its assets
of Identity Evropa. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days to attempt to accomplish such service
on Identity Evropa. If Plaintiff is unable to do so notwithstanding reasonable diligence to effect
service but still wishes to serve Identity Evropa, by the end of those fourteen days, Plaintiff may
file an affidavit and other submissions to support a request from this Court to permit alternative
service upon the California Secretary of State.
For these reasons, Identity Evropa’s Motion to Dismiss for improper service is
GRANTED, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to attempt to correct service pursuant to
California Corporation Code § 2011(b), within fourteen (14) days.
It is so ORDERED.
Neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1) nor Virginia’s service provisions would have
permitted service upon LegalZoom under these circumstances.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to
Entered this 31st
day of March, 2021.
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?