Larkin v. Cabraser

Background

Billy F. Larkin, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action against approximately 22 attorneys and their law firms, along with unidentified attorneys and firms. He alleged that the defendants were involved in the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Settlement and that they committed fraud, legal malpractice, and breached the settlement agreement, causing termination of his settlement recovery claim.

The court had initially dismissed the action because Larkin had not paid the filing fee or submitted a complete application to proceed without paying it. The court later reopened the action, treated his application as complete, and required him to respond to a question about whether a federal statute barred him from proceeding without paying the fee. Larkin then paid the filing fee. The court therefore treated his requests to proceed without paying the fee and to reopen the action as moot.

Service-related motions

Larkin asked the court to stay the case, extend his deadline to serve the defendants, and order the United States Marshal to serve them. He also asked the court to waive the service requirement and send the summons and complaint electronically through the court’s filing system.

The court granted an extension of time to serve the defendants, setting September 30, 2024, as the deadline. It explained that the federal service rule generally requires service within 90 days after filing or reopening and allows an extension for good cause. The court stated that incarceration alone was not enough to establish good cause because California law provides alternatives to personal service.

The court denied the request for United States Marshal service. It stated that judges are not required to act as counsel or assistants for parties representing themselves and declined to use Marshal resources to serve more than 40 defendants across the United States. The court also denied the request to waive service or treat electronic transmission as service because Larkin had not yet attempted other service methods and the record did not show that those methods would fail.

In explaining its decision about Marshal service, the court said the action appeared potentially duplicative of an earlier round of the dispute, potentially filed in the wrong court because of the settlement’s terms, unclear as to the basis for applying California law to non-California defendants, and potentially untimely. The court did not dismiss the action in this order on any of those grounds.

Class-action request

Larkin asked to maintain the case as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court denied that request because it concluded that a prisoner representing himself could not adequately and fairly represent the interests of a class.

Disposition

The court denied as moot Larkin’s requests to proceed without paying the filing fee and to reopen the action. It denied his requests for a stay, United States Marshal service, waiver of service, electronic issuance of the summons and complaint, and class treatment. It granted his request for additional time to serve the defendants and ordered service by September 30, 2024. The court stated that failure to complete service by that date would result in dismissal under the federal service rule without further notice unless Larkin demonstrated good cause.