United States v. Barajas
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-00418
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In United States v. Barajas, Judge Corley denied the government’s default-judgment motion without prejudice because service on Barajas was not shown proper.
The United States must establish proper service before obtaining default judgment against Paulo Barajas; the court’s denial was without prejudice.
What happened
In United States v. Barajas, the United States sought payment of back wages, penalties, fees, and interest that followed a Department of Labor investigation. Paulo Barajas did not appear, and the United States asked the court to enter judgment against him for $19,854.94.
The court found that the United States had not shown that Barajas was properly served with the summons and complaint. The process server left the papers with Maya Calderon at a Napa residence, but the supporting documents did not establish that the residence was Barajas’s home, that Calderon was his wife and lived there, or that she was told what the papers contained. The court also found that the service did not satisfy California’s service rules, and that Barajas’s possible actual notice did not replace proper service.
Judge Corley denied the United States’ motion for default judgment without prejudice. The court scheduled a case-management conference and stated that the United States could renew its motion; if it did not, it was required to submit a case-management statement.
The detailed version
- United States v. Barajas · No. 3:22-cv-00418
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 21, 2022
Background
The United States alleged that Paulo Barajas owed back wages, penalties, fees, and related amounts resulting from a Department of Labor investigation of his business. The Department of Labor referred the matter to the Department of the Treasury, which referred it to the Department of Justice for collection. The United States then filed this case.
Barajas did not appear. The Clerk entered his default on June 8, 2022, and the United States moved for default judgment. The United States requested a total judgment of $19,854.94, including $12,975.78 in principal and additional penalties, administrative fees, and interest.
Service Attempts
The United States attempted service several times at a work address in Vallejo. On the last attempt there, a store manager said Barajas had been let go about four months earlier, before the complaint was filed. Although a certificate of indebtedness listed an address in American Canyon, the United States did not attempt service there. It next attempted service at a residence in Napa.
After several unsuccessful attempts at the Napa residence, a process server left the summons and complaint with a person identified as “Maya Calderon Wife & Co-Tenant.” The United States argued that this service was sufficient and also pointed to evidence that Barajas may have contacted its counsel after the case was filed.
Court’s Analysis
Before entering default judgment, a federal court must ensure that the defendant was properly served. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving legally sufficient service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Under Rule 4(e)(2)(B), papers may be left at the defendant’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there. The court found that the process server’s declaration did not explain why the Napa address was Barajas’s dwelling or usual place of abode. It also did not explain why the process server believed Calderon was Barajas’s wife or lived at the residence. The court therefore found the evidence insufficient to establish valid federal substitute service.
The court separately found that the service did not satisfy California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b). The United States had not explained why the Napa residence was Barajas’s home or usual mailing address, and it had not stated that Calderon was informed of the contents of the papers. Because the California requirements were not met, service also did not satisfy the federal rule allowing service under state law.
The court further held that possible actual notice did not eliminate the need for proper service. Without proper service, the court could not enter default judgment against Barajas.
Disposition
The court denied the United States’ motion for default judgment without prejudice. The order stated that a case-management conference would occur on November 3, 2022, and that, if the United States had not renewed its motion for default judgment, it had to submit a case-management statement one week before the conference.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.