Lori Chavez-Deremer v. Clockwise Staffing Agency
Lori Chavez-Deremer, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Clockwise Staffing Agency, LLC; Dalmas Mokaya
- Dulce Foster
- 0:26-cv-00779
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Lori Chavez-Deremer, Secretary of Labor v. Clockwise Staffing Agency, LLC and Dalmas Mokaya, Magistrate Judge Foster denied the Secretary of Labor's request to have the U.S. Marshals Service deliver legal papers to the defendants, ruling that the Secretary had not even tried to serve the defendants directly and had shown no reason why a law enforcement presence was necessary.
The U.S. Department of Labor and its litigating attorneys are directly affected, as the ruling requires them to pursue formal service of process on defendants through standard means rather than using the U.S. Marshals Service. The ruling also has broader significance for any federal government plaintiff or private civil litigant who might seek to use the Marshals Service as a substitute for ordinary service of process.
What happened
In Lori Chavez-Deremer, Secretary of Labor v. Clockwise Staffing Agency, LLC and Dalmas Mokaya (Case No. 26-cv-779), the U.S. Department of Labor sued a staffing company and an individual for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal law that sets minimum wage, overtime, and other workplace standards. After sending requests for defendants to voluntarily accept service of the lawsuit and getting no response — and after learning that defendants' former lawyer no longer represented them — the Secretary of Labor asked the court to order the U.S. Marshals Service to formally deliver the lawsuit paperwork to the defendants on her behalf.
The court explained the legal background: before 1983, U.S. Marshals routinely delivered legal papers in all private civil cases, but Congress changed that practice to limit Marshal involvement to narrow circumstances — primarily situations where a law enforcement presence is needed to keep the peace or ensure safety. Both the federal rules and this court's local rules make clear that Marshal service is a last resort, not a convenience. The Secretary argued that the defendants' evasiveness was good cause for Marshal involvement, but the court disagreed, noting she had only tried to get defendants to voluntarily waive service and had never actually attempted formal service herself.
Magistrate Judge Foster denied the motion, holding that the Secretary of Labor, like any other civil plaintiff, must go through the ordinary process of locating and formally serving the defendants. The court found no law, rule, or legal precedent entitling the Secretary to special treatment, and cited a similar case from another court that reached the same conclusion under nearly identical facts.
The detailed version
Case
Lori Chavez-Deremer, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Clockwise Staffing Agency, LLC; Dalmas Mokaya, Case No. 26-cv-779 (JMB/DJF), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Judge
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster.
Date
March 11, 2026.
Background and Procedural Posture
The Secretary of Labor filed suit against Clockwise Staffing Agency, LLC and Dalmas Mokaya alleging violations of Section 217 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the federal statute governing minimum wage, overtime pay, and related employment protections. The Secretary moved for an order directing the U.S. Marshals Service to effect formal service of process — delivery of the summons, complaint, and notice of appearance — on the defendants.
The Secretary's attempts to notify defendants of the lawsuit included: (1) sending requests for voluntary waivers of service to defendants, which went unanswered within 30 days; (2) sending waivers to defendants' former counsel, Steven E. Antolak, who stated he no longer represented defendants; and (3) attempting to contact defendants by phone and email to determine whether they had new counsel, with no response. The Secretary had not attempted formal, direct service of process on defendants at any point.
Legal Framework
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) permits — but does not require — a court to order that service be made by a U.S. Marshal or a specially appointed person at a plaintiff's request. The District of Minnesota's Local Rule 4.1 supplements this by requiring a showing of 'good cause' before such an order issues. The court reviewed the legislative history of Rule 4(c)(3), noting that before 1983 Marshals served process in all private civil federal cases, but Congress changed this to relieve the Marshals Service of routine civil service. Advisory committee notes to Rule 4(c)(3) specify that Marshal service is reserved for situations where 'a law enforcement presence appears to be necessary or advisable to keep the peace.' Local Rule 4.1's advisory notes similarly contemplate Marshal service only when an 'enforcement presence is required.'
Court's Analysis
The court rejected the Secretary's contention that the difficulty of serving elusive defendants constitutes good cause. Specifically, the court found: (1) the Secretary had only attempted to obtain voluntary waivers of service, not actual service of process; (2) there was no suggestion in the motion that a law enforcement presence was necessary or that safety concerns existed; (3) the Secretary offered no explanation for why the Marshals would succeed where she had not; and (4) no text, case law, or legislative history supports special treatment for the Secretary of Labor over other civil plaintiffs. The court cited Su v. El Toro Loco Legends, LLC, No. 23-cv-2115 (JAR/RES), 2023 WL 12174833 (D. Kan. April 25, 2023), in which a court denied an identical motion by the Secretary of Labor under nearly identical circumstances.
Ruling
The court DENIED the Secretary's Motion for an Order Requiring the United States Marshals Service to Effect Service. The Secretary must use ordinary civil service of process procedures to serve defendants.
Note on Footnote
The opinion notes in a footnote that Rule 4(c)(3) does mandate Marshal service when a plaintiff is proceeding without paying filing fees (in forma pauperis) or as a seaman, but neither situation applies here.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.