Trout v. County of Madera

Background

Calley Jean Garay was fatally shot by her estranged husband, Julio Garay, Sr., on July 14, 2020, as she left a medical appointment in Madera County, California. The complaint alleged that Calley and her children had suffered abuse, that information about her appointment was provided to Julio Sr., and that he waited outside the medical clinic before shooting her. Julio Sr. was later caught, tried, and convicted of her murder.

After Calley’s death, her three boys were placed in the custody of Child Welfare Services. The complaint alleged that the boys were later placed with Julio Garay, Jr., that they showed signs of physical abuse, and that the County of Madera and others failed to provide appropriate mental-health care. The complaint also alleged that Julio Sr., his mother, and Amanda M. Garay fraudulently transferred property in Chowchilla to hinder creditors, including the minors.

Trout, identified as the children’s maternal grandfather and guardian ad litem, filed the lawsuit against 19 defendants. The defendants filed several motions seeking dismissal, transfer of venue, or other relief. This order addressed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which allows dismissal for improper venue, and a related motion challenging service of process. It did not reach the defendants’ requested discretionary transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or the motions under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Service of Process

Trout attempted to serve William Lightbourne at his home on September 16, 2021. Lightbourne had been the Director of the California Department of Health Care Services, but Michelle Baass had become the agency’s director before the attempted service. The court held that Lightbourne no longer had actual authority to accept service for the agency.

The court also rejected Trout’s argument that Lightbourne had apparent authority, meaning that the agency’s conduct reasonably made him appear authorized to accept service. The court found that agency letterhead and an agency website that continued to display some information about Lightbourne did not adequately represent that he remained director. The court also found that a later communication from counsel could not establish apparent authority because Trout had already delivered the papers before receiving that communication.

The court therefore concluded that service on Lightbourne was ineffective and dismissed the agency from the case for lack of effective service.

Improper Venue

The court then considered whether the Northern District of California was a proper venue. Trout relied primarily on the residence of former Director Lightbourne in Santa Cruz County. The court held that an official-capacity lawsuit follows the government office, not the official’s personal residence. It concluded that the Department of Health Care Services and its director reside for venue purposes where the agency’s relevant offices are located, in Sacramento County within the Eastern District of California.

Trout also argued that the federal Department of Health and Human Services had a regional office in San Francisco and suggested that Secretary Xavier Becerra had a personal residence in California. The court rejected those arguments. It held that an agency’s regional office does not establish venue residence and that the official-capacity residence of the federal Secretary was tied to the Department’s offices in the District of Columbia, not a personal residence.

The court further found that the substantial events and omissions underlying the claims occurred in Madera County or Sacramento County, both within the Eastern District of California. The property involved in the fraudulent-transfer claim was also in Madera County. The court found no sufficient factual connection between the claims and the Northern District, and neither Trout nor the minors he represented resided there.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the operative complaint because service on Lightbourne was improper and venue was improper in the Northern District of California. The dismissal was without prejudice to filing in the proper district court. The court terminated the other motions without reaching them and suggested that Trout reassess whether the claims and defendants were properly joined before refiling.