Trout v. County of Madera

Background

Keith Trout, described as the maternal grandfather and guardian ad litem of Calley Jean Garay’s four minor children, sued 19 defendants. The complaint concerned Calley’s fatal shooting by her estranged husband, Julio Garay, Sr.; the subsequent placement and alleged abuse of three of Calley’s sons; and an alleged fraudulent transfer of property.

The claims generally involved constitutional violations, negligence and gross negligence, wrongful death, privacy, survivorship, and fraudulent conveyance. The defendants included the County of Madera, county and state officials, federal officials sued in their official capacities, health-care and shelter-related entities, private individuals, and other entities.

Service of Process

The court first considered whether Trout properly served William Lightbourne, the former Director of the California Department of Health Care Services. Trout delivered the summons and complaint to Lightbourne at his home on September 16, 2021. The court found that Lightbourne’s last day at the agency was September 14, 2021, and that Michelle Baass had assumed the Director’s responsibilities on September 15, 2021. Lightbourne therefore lacked actual authority to accept service for the agency when Trout served him.

The court also rejected Trout’s argument that Lightbourne had apparent authority—authority that a principal’s conduct reasonably causes someone else to believe an agent has. The court found that agency publications and website information listing Lightbourne as Director did not sufficiently represent that he still held the position. Although a communication from counsel might have supported some reliance, it came after service and did not cause Trout to change his position. The court therefore concluded that service on Lightbourne was ineffective.

Venue

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which allows dismissal for improper venue. Trout relied on the rule allowing venue where a defendant resides, arguing that all defendants resided in California and that Lightbourne’s personal residence in Santa Cruz County supported venue in the Northern District. He also pointed to a federal agency regional office in San Francisco.

The court rejected those arguments. Because Lightbourne was sued only in his official capacity, the venue analysis followed the agency and the official duties—not Lightbourne’s personal residence. The court determined that the Department of Health Care Services and its officials sued in their official capacities resided for venue purposes in the Eastern District of California. It likewise concluded that the federal Department of Health and Human Services and its Secretary sued in an official capacity were not residents of the Northern District, and that the San Francisco regional office did not establish residence there.

The court further found that the events underlying the claims occurred in Madera County, which is in the Eastern District of California. Those events included the shooting, the alleged abuse of the three boys, and the alleged fraudulent property transfer. Neither Trout nor the represented minors resided in the Northern District, and the property involved in the fraudulent-conveyance claim was also in the Eastern District.

Disposition

The court dismissed the operative complaint for improper venue and stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to filing in the proper district court. It terminated the other motions challenging the complaint without reaching them, including motions under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), motions for discretionary transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the related motion contesting service of process. The court did not decide the merits of Trout’s underlying claims.