Yeh v. Mayorkas

Background

Jennifer Yeh moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2) for reimbursement of costs related to serving individual defendants. She had mailed each individual defendant the amended complaint, summons, notice of lawsuit and request to waive service, waiver forms, and a means to return the forms. Several defendants accepted delivery but did not timely return the waiver forms. Yeh then used process servers to serve certain defendants personally. She sought reimbursement of $493,911.04 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Waiver requests and good cause

The defendants argued that the waiver requests were improper because they did not state that the defendants were being sued in their individual capacities. The court rejected that argument, explaining that Rule 4(d)(1) requires the request to be addressed to the individual defendant but does not require the waiver form to state that the defendant is sued individually. The court also noted that several packets were sent to the defendants’ personal addresses rather than only to their agencies.

The defendants also argued that they had good cause not to waive service because the amended complaint supposedly did not state a valid claim against them. The court rejected that argument because the defendants cited no authority making an alleged failure to state a claim a valid reason to refuse waiver. The court held that the defendants had not met their burden of showing good cause for failing to return the waiver forms on time.

Attorney’s fees and service costs

Yeh argued that she could recover attorney’s fees because she is licensed to practice law in California. The court denied that request, applying Ninth Circuit authority holding that attorneys representing themselves cannot recover statutory attorney’s fees.

The court allowed recovery of reasonable costs for personal service. It denied costs associated with mailing the waiver packets because those costs ordinarily would have been incurred if the defendants had complied with the waiver procedure. The court also found that later service on Erika Jordan was not compensable to the extent it involved serving the initial complaint after the amended complaint had already been served. For Robert Scott, the court limited recovery to one service because he was served twice due to an error in the summons. The court found that Cynthia Mazur had not timely waived service on the required waiver form, so the cost of personal service on her was recoverable.

The court identified these recoverable invoices: Adrian Sevier, $317.50; Joel Doolin, $85.00; Cynthia Mazur, $250.00; Robert Scott, $155.00; Vikram Kapoor, $85.00; and Erika Jordan, $255.25. The total was $1,147.75. The court denied reimbursement for other expenses, including waiver-packet costs, office supplies, mailing supplies, public transit, and a laser printer.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Yeh’s motion for reimbursement. It ordered the individual defendants to reimburse $1,147.75 for qualifying personal-service costs caused by their failure to timely waive service. The motion was denied in all other respects, and payment was ordered within 21 days of the order.