Goyne et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Filing 11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: 6 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (AY, Case Administrator)

1

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Apr 13, 2016
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4
5

DENNY GOYNE and FELISHIA
GOYNES,

6

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

7
8

No. 2:15-CV-0312-SMJ

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

9
10
11

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendant Wells Fargo’s

12

Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6. Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the action

13

because, among other issues, Plaintiffs failed to effectuate proper service of

14

process upon Well Fargo.

15

Federal courts lack the power to assert personal jurisdiction over a

16

defendant unless the procedural requirements of effective service of process are

17

satisfied. Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104

18

(1987). Service is therefore not only a means of notifying a defendant of the

19

commencement of an action against him, but “a ritual that marks the court’s

20

assertion of jurisdiction over the lawsuit.” Okla. Radio Assocs. v. FDIC, 969 F.2d

ORDER - 1

1

940, 943 (10th Cir.1992). Consequently, courts have uniformly held a judgment is

2

void where the requirements for effective service have not been satisfied.” Combs

3

v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 442 & n. 42 (D.C.Cir.1987).

4

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4 requires that the summons and

5

complaint to be delivered, through personal service, upon each named defendant.

6

A defendant’s actual notice of the litigation does not cure defects in service—

7

service of process in accord with FRCP 4 is still required. Mann v. Castiel, 681

8

F.3d 368, 373 (DC Cir. 2012) (“defendant’s knowledge complaint filed not

9

sufficient to establish court’s personal jurisdiction”).
Here, the Goynes failed to properly serve Wells Fargo with the summons

10
11

and complaint and have not complied with FRCP 4 to request Wells Fargo’s

12

waiver of service. Because there was insufficient service of process, the Goynes’

13

complaint is dismissed.

14

//

15

//

16

//

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

ORDER - 2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED.

3

2.

All claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with all
parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

4
5

3.

All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

6

4.

All hearings and other deadlines are STRICKEN.

7

5.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to CLOSE this file.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order

9
10

and provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 13th day of April 2016.

11
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Q:\SMJ\Civil\2015\Goyne et al v Wells Fargo Bank NA-0312\Ord Grant Dismiss docx

ORDER - 3