Flickinger v. Castillo

Background

Self-represented plaintiff Jason Archie Flickinger brought this action against 37 defendants. Some defendants had been served and appeared, some had been voluntarily dismissed, and most had not appeared. The application concerned service on certain individual defendants in Mexico, including defendants who had not been located or whose earlier electronic-service attempts had failed or had not produced an appearance.

Flickinger’s second application sought permission to serve or re-serve defendants through registered email, WhatsApp, Facebook posts, and Facebook Messenger. He also proposed serving some defendants as groups based on alleged family, employment, law-firm, or attorney-client relationships.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) permits a court to order a method of serving an individual outside the United States when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The method must also satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably likely, under the circumstances, to tell the person about the lawsuit and give that person an opportunity to respond. The court said alternative service is decided individually based on the evidence and the circumstances.

The court found that service by email, WhatsApp, and Facebook was not prohibited by an international agreement with Mexico. It also incorporated findings from its earlier order that court intervention was necessary because of Flickinger’s difficulties serving the Mexican individual defendants.

Rulings on group service

The court denied group service for the proposed Roma Legal defendants. The evidence showed that some of them had worked together or represented Flickinger years earlier, but the court found insufficient reason to expect that they remained in regular contact.

The court granted group service for the proposed Betancourt Associates defendants. It found that the evidence and the more recent relationships among the individuals made service through specified members of that group reasonably likely to provide notice to the others.

The court granted in part and denied in part group service for the proposed Castillo Family defendants. It found that service on Jaqueline Reyes Castillo, María de la Luz Castillo de la Torre, Gloria Castillo de la Torre, or Luis Antonio Castillo Juarez could reasonably notify the other family members. It denied group service for Enrique Vargas Gutierrez and Francisco Javier Hernandez Favila because their older attorney relationships did not make notice sufficiently likely.

Individual service methods

The court authorized particular individual or group-service attempts for several defendants, including Jaqueline Reyes Castillo, Luis Antonio Castillo Juarez, María de la Luz Castillo de la Torre, Gloria Castillo de la Torre, Luis Roberto Magaña Orozco, Luis Enrique Martin Del Campo Valencia, Cristobal Everardo Rodríguez Hernández, Raymundo Ventura Garcia, Virginia Betancourt Rodríguez, Jonathan Chavez Betancourt, Israhel Martinez Peinado, Eduardo Nicolas Mireles Jaime, Rolando Castañeda Ruiz, and Miguel Misael Martinez Anaya. The authorized methods included registered email, WhatsApp messages, Facebook Messenger, and messages sent through specified family members, coworkers, law-firm associates, or government offices, as described for each defendant in the order.

The court denied David Obed Salas Ríos’s request for alternative service without prejudice because Flickinger had not located contact information for him and the court rejected group service through the Roma Legal defendants. The court also denied Enrique Vargas Gutierrez’s request for alternative service without prejudice because Flickinger had not shown that the former employers whose contact information he found still employed him. The court said those requests could be renewed under the conditions stated in the order.

The court denied further service on Irving Terrazas Molina because his prior service email had been delivered and opened, and the court found that additional service would serve no purpose.

Required form and deadlines

For email, the court required use of the same registered-email method authorized in the earlier order. For WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, Flickinger could not personally send the messages; instead, a process server, private investigator, or other adult third party who was not believed to be blocked had to send them with available delivery confirmation. Each message had to include the proposed summons, Flickinger’s name, the court and district, and the case number. Group-service messages also had to include the summonses for the other group members and direct the recipient to convey them to those individuals if they remained in contact.

The court granted in part and denied in part the application and set July 30, 2025 as the deadline for several authorized service attempts and supplemental proofs of service. It continued to require a status report concerning David Obed Salas Ríos after the required appearance event. The order stated that there was no change concerning Pedro Quintero’s service status and the related status-report requirement after Robert Crisp’s appearance.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the second application for alternative service. The order addressed service procedures and deadlines; it did not decide the underlying claims.