Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-08449
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Judge Gilliam directed service or location information within 60 days, warning of dismissal without prejudice.
Michael Domino and the defendants Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken. The order required action concerning service on those two defendants and warned that their dismissal would follow if service was not completed or sufficient location information was not provided.
What happened
Michael Domino brought a civil-rights case against Kentucky Fried Chicken and others. The United States Marshal attempted service when a restaurant manager accepted the summons for Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The court said that acceptance did not properly serve the corporate defendants because the manager was not shown to be authorized to accept service. The court also said that providing correct information for service remains the plaintiff’s responsibility, even when the Marshal performs the service.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Domino, within 60 days, either to serve Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken or provide enough information for the Marshal to do so. The court warned that failing to do this would result in dismissal of claims against those defendants without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken · No. 4:19-cv-08449
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 12, 2020
Background
Michael Domino filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee and had ordered the United States Marshal to issue summonses and serve the amended complaint.
The Marshal filed an executed summons stating that a manager at the Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants at 691 Eddy Street in San Francisco had accepted service. The court determined that this did not properly serve the corporate defendants Taco Bell and KFC.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) permits service on a corporation, partnership, or association by delivering the summons and complaint to an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized to accept service. It also permits service under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service occurs.
The court explained that California law allows service on a corporation through certain officers, a designated service agent, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service. California law also provides methods for substitute service and service by mail, subject to specified requirements. The court found that the restaurant manager’s receipt of the summons did not satisfy these requirements. Therefore, neither Taco Bell nor KFC had been served.
The court further stated that although a plaintiff proceeding without paying the filing fee may rely on service by the Marshal, the plaintiff remains responsible for giving the Marshal correct information. Under Rule 4(m), a complaint pending for more than 90 days may be dismissed without prejudice unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve.
Order
The court directed Domino, within 60 days after the order was filed, either to serve Taco Bell and KFC or to submit sufficient information for the Marshal to effect service. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the defendants Taco Bell and KFC without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The order did not decide the merits of Domino’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.