Razavi v. Coti
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-04341
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Razavi v. Coti, Judge Freeman ordered Melina Razavi to explain why her unserved case should not be dismissed without prejudice.
The order affects Melina Razavi and the two unserved defendants, Carlos Coti and Geico Insurance Company. Razavi must provide service information or explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Melina Razavi, representing herself and without paying the filing fee, sued Carlos Coti and Geico Insurance Company after an automobile accident. The case is Razavi v. Coti.
The court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendants using addresses Razavi provided, but the Marshal could not locate either defendant. Because the defendants had not been served, the case could not proceed.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman gave Razavi 21 days, until November 30, 2021, to provide usable service addresses or explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Razavi v. Coti · No. 5:17-cv-04341
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 9, 2021
Background
Melina Razavi, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought this action after an automobile accident. She sued Carlos Coti, the other driver, and Geico Insurance Company, her own insurer.
The court had ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summonses and complaints at addresses Razavi provided. On November 2, 2021, the Marshal returned both summonses unexecuted, meaning service was not completed, because the defendants could not be located at those addresses.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a self-represented plaintiff who is allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee may rely on the Marshal to serve defendants after providing the information needed to complete service. But if the plaintiff does not provide accurate and sufficient information, dismissal of the unserved defendant may be appropriate. The court also stated that the case could not proceed against the defendants without completed service because service is required before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Order
The court ordered Razavi to show cause, in writing and by November 30, 2021, why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants. It gave her 21 days to provide alternate service addresses for Coti and Geico, or for Geico’s California agent for service of process, or otherwise explain why dismissal should not occur. The court did not dismiss the action in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.