Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-03758
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Anna Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Lin extended Shteerman’s deadline to serve the entity defendants after finding her mailing insufficient.
Anna Mishina Shteerman and the entity defendants were directly affected: Shteerman received until January 15, 2026, to complete service, while the deadline to serve the individual defendants remained stayed.
What happened
Anna Mishina Shteerman, representing herself, told the court that she had served the entity defendants by certified mail. She submitted an affidavit and supporting documents after receiving a deadline of December 15, 2025.
The court found that the mailing did not meet the required service rules because Shteerman did not show that she included the required acknowledgment form and prepaid return envelope. She also did not show that she had attempted personal service. The court extended her deadline to serve the entity defendants to January 15, 2026, while the deadline to serve the individual defendants remained stayed.
Judge Rita F. Lin issued the order on November 25, 2025. The order also noted that Shteerman could consult the Northern District of California’s Legal Help Center for basic legal assistance, but not representation.
The detailed version
- Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:25-cv-03758
- Lin
- Nov. 24, 2025
Background
Anna Mishina Shteerman, who was representing herself, was required to complete service of process—the formal delivery of the summons and complaint—on the entity defendants by December 15, 2025. She submitted an affidavit and supporting documents stating that she had sent the summons, complaint, and documents required by the court’s local rule by certified mail with a return receipt requested.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that federal law permits service on domestic corporations, partnerships, associations, state governments, and local governments through specified methods. One method requires delivery to an authorized officer or agent. Another permits service under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service occurs.
Under California law, service by mail requires the summons and complaint to be sent with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment, plus a prepaid return envelope addressed to the sender. If the acknowledgment is not returned, service must be completed another way, such as personal service. The court stated that a postal return receipt is not a substitute for the required executed acknowledgment.
The court found that Shteerman’s evidence did not show that she included the required acknowledgment document or prepaid return envelope. It also stated that the entity defendants would have needed to return the acknowledgment before service by that method was complete. In addition, Shteerman did not show that she had attempted personal service through a process server or another person who was at least 18 years old and was not a party to the case.
Order
For good cause shown, the court extended Shteerman’s deadline to serve the entity defendants to January 15, 2026. The deadline to serve the individual defendants remained stayed. The order also identified standard California and federal service forms and provided information about the Northern District of California’s Legal Help Center, which may provide free basic legal help but not representation.
The court did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.