Flickinger v. Castillo

Background

Jason Archie Flickinger, a self-represented plaintiff, sued 37 defendants. The defendants included Robert Crisp and Pedro Quintero, other individuals in the United States, individuals in Mexico, and Mexican-government entities. None of the defendants had appeared. Flickinger had previously tried to serve the defendants and had received extensions of time, but the court had rejected earlier requests for alternative service.

Flickinger filed two applications without a hearing. The first sought more time to serve Crisp and Quintero and permission to serve Quintero by publication. The second sought permission to serve individual Mexican defendants through email and WhatsApp, along with more time to complete service.

Rulings on the American Defendants

The court found that Flickinger had shown diligence and good cause for extending the service deadline for Crisp. The court granted him an additional 45 days to serve Crisp and ordered him to file proof of service by May 23, 2025.

The court also found diligence and good cause for giving Flickinger more time to serve Quintero. But it denied without prejudice his request to serve Quintero by publication because the court concluded that publication was not yet a last resort. Flickinger could renew that request after Crisp appeared and after he filed a status report about his efforts to serve Quintero. The court gave him 45 days from Crisp’s appearance to do so.

Rulings on the Individual Mexican Defendants

The court held that service by email in Mexico was not prohibited by an international agreement. It also held that WhatsApp was not prohibited on the record before it. The court concluded that court intervention was necessary because of Flickinger’s difficulties locating the defendants and found that the proposed email or WhatsApp methods could, in appropriate circumstances, provide notice reasonably calculated to inform the defendants of the case.

The court granted some requests for electronic service and denied others without prejudice. It granted service requests for several defendants, including Yolanda de Leon Garcia, Juan Carlos Degollado Rodríguez, Bertha Marine Casillas Martínez, María Concepción Mendieta Santos, Rodrigo Iván Acevedo Macías, Judith Arzave Ramirez, and Erik Osiris Rodriguez Huitron. For several other defendants, the court granted service by email but denied without prejudice service through WhatsApp. It denied without prejudice requests involving other defendants because Flickinger had not submitted enough evidence connecting the WhatsApp accounts to those defendants and showing when the accounts were last used. The order permitted renewal of certain requests if other service failed or if Flickinger submitted additional supporting declarations and exhibits.

The order required Flickinger to use Registered Email for the permitted email service, attach the proposed summons, provide specified information about the case, and file proof of service for each individual Mexican defendant he served by May 8, 2025.

Other Service Matters and Disposition

The court stated that Flickinger could not simply remove two unlocated defendants from the case; he would need to voluntarily dismiss them. The court said it would address that issue later, after the outstanding service matters were resolved. For five other unlocated defendants, Flickinger was required to file a status report within 45 days after the first individual Mexican defendant appeared. He also had to continue pursuing service on the Mexican-government entities and provide a status update by May 23, 2025.

The court’s overall disposition was to grant in part and deny in part both ex parte applications. The order concerned service of process and related deadlines; it did not reach the merits of Flickinger’s claims. Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.