Stinson v. Nejah
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:23-cv-04858
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stinson v. Nejah, Judge Beeler ordered email service on an unserved defendant after two unsuccessful personal-delivery attempts.
Ronnie Stinson, Allen Nejah, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order allowed the marshal to attempt service on Nejah by email.
What happened
In Stinson v. Nejah, Allen Nejah had not yet been served, and two attempts had already been made to serve him personally. The plaintiff was proceeding without paying filing fees, so a U.S. marshal had to carry out service.
The court explained that California law permits a court to direct service in a way reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. Courts in the district have authorized email service in similar circumstances.
Judge Beeler ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt to serve Allen Nejah by email. The order addressed the method of service and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Stinson v. Nejah · No. 3:23-cv-04858
- Laurel Beeler
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
Allen Nejah had not been served in the case. Two attempts had already been made to serve him by personal delivery. Because Ronnie Stinson was proceeding without paying filing fees, federal law required service by a U.S. marshal.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) allows service on an individual by a method permitted by the law of the state where the federal district court is located or where service occurs. California law lists several service methods and also allows a court to direct another method that is reasonably calculated to give the person actual notice. The order cited prior decisions from the Northern District of California authorizing service by email.
Ruling
The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt service on Allen Nejah by email at the address specified in the order. The court relied on the prior unsuccessful attempts at personal service and the cited authority allowing email service after reasonable attempts by other means. The order concerned service only and did not resolve the merits of the claims.
Disposition
The court entered an order regarding service by email on February 20, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.