Shaw v. Garcia

Background

Pro se plaintiff Laurence Jay Shaw sued Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia, Veronica Rosibel Manzano Garcia, and Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC. Shaw alleged that Garcia and Veronica Garcia had previously worked for his company in Guatemala and, in October 2023, took online and physical assets and began operating a competing company. Shaw sought a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from using his intellectual property and requiring them to restore his access to email and online accounts.

The court previously found that Shaw had not met the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice to the defendants. It directed him to serve the complaint, the temporary-restraining-order application, and that order by September 10, 2024, and to file proof of service by September 11, 2024.

Motion for Alternative Service

Shaw moved for permission to use an alternative method of service. He explained that the defendants still reside in Guatemala and that service under the Inter-American Service Convention and Additional Protocol could require months and cause delay. His motion proposed using a Guatemalan law firm to personally serve the defendants at home or work.

The court held that Guatemala is a signatory to the Inter-American Service Convention and Additional Protocol, which provides a specific process for serving defendants there. Although that process may take substantial time, the court found that this was not enough reason to create a different service procedure. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(1), the court denied the motion for alternative service.

Other Filings and Service

Before the court ruled on the motion, Shaw filed two certificates of service. One purported to show service on the individual defendants through a lawyer and registered notary in Guatemala who left documents at their door. The other purported to show service on Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC through a registered agent in New Mexico.

The court noted that Edwin Garcia appeared to have actual notice because he filed a document styled as an answer. On its face, that document stated that it was filed by Garcia and Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC. Garcia also appeared to have filed an opposition to the temporary restraining order on behalf of Veronica Garcia. The court stated that, as a pro se party, Garcia could not represent or file documents for another person or entity. Because the opposition also appeared to be in Spanish rather than English, the court struck Docket No. 18 and directed the Clerk to remove it from the docket. The court stated that Garcia could re-file the document.

The court further explained that actual notice did not eliminate Shaw’s obligation to properly serve Garcia. It found that the attempted service did not comply with the treaty and Rule 4(f)(1), and that the court had not approved an alternative method. The court stated that a federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has not been served in accordance with Rule 4.

Disposition

The court found that additional time to serve the individual defendants was warranted. It ordered Shaw to serve them under the Inter-American Service Convention and Additional Protocol by January 16, 2025. By January 17, 2025, Shaw had to file a declaration and supporting proof that service was completed, or a status report explaining his service efforts and how much more time he needed. The court held the temporary-restraining-order application in abeyance until the defendants were properly served.