Kamath v. United States Department of Homeland Security
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-03531
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Kamath v. Homeland Security, Judge Corley dismissed claims against two federal entities without prejudice for improper service and set a service deadline for Steve Glumas.
Reshma Kamath’s claims against Federal Protective Services and the United States Department of Homeland Security were dismissed without prejudice for failure to properly serve them. Steve Glumas was given a July 30, 2024 service deadline, while the claims against the San Francisco Police Department had previously been dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Kamath v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Reshma Kamath sued the San Francisco Police Department, Federal Protective Services, the Department of Homeland Security, Steve Glumas, and two unnamed security guards over the ticketing and towing of her vehicle near the San Francisco federal courthouse. The court had previously dismissed the claims against the San Francisco Police Department with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The court dismissed Kamath’s claims against Federal Protective Services and the Department of Homeland Security without prejudice because she did not properly serve them with the summons and complaint or amended complaint. The court also ordered her to serve newly added defendant Steve Glumas by July 30, 2024, or his claims would be dismissed without prejudice.
Judge Corley ruled that Kamath had not met the court’s service deadlines or explained her failure to do so. The order disposed of the pending request for more time to serve.
The detailed version
- Kamath v. United States Department of Homeland Security · No. 3:23-cv-03531
- Jacquelyn Corley
- June 11, 2024
Background
Reshma Kamath brought claims arising from the ticketing and towing of her vehicle while it was parked near the San Francisco federal courthouse. The defendants named in the opinion were the San Francisco Police Department, Federal Protective Services, the United States Department of Homeland Security, Steve Glumas, and two unnamed security guards.
The court had previously dismissed the claims against the City and County of San Francisco, identified in the opinion as the San Francisco Police Department, with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court had allowed Kamath to file an amended complaint and specifically instructed her to properly serve all defendants.
Kamath filed a First Amended Complaint on May 1, 2024. The court then ordered her to serve the remaining defendants by May 23, 2024, and file proof of service by May 30, 2024. The court warned that failing to meet those deadlines could lead to dismissal without prejudice. Kamath did not meet the deadlines. The court also ordered her to explain by June 10 why the claims should not be dismissed for failure to serve. Instead of providing the required explanation or filing proofs of service, she filed objections and requested additional time.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within a specified period. The court found that Kamath had not properly served Federal Protective Services or the Department of Homeland Security with a summons and the original or amended complaint. The earlier proofs of service did not establish proper service under Rule 4(i), which governs service on the United States and federal agencies. The court also found that Kamath had not explained her failure to comply with the service orders.
The court stated that Kamath had 90 days from the May 1 filing of the amended complaint to serve a newly added defendant. The court understood the reference to a “new defendant” to presumably mean Steve Glumas and noted that the docket did not show that Kamath had requested a summons for him.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claims against Federal Protective Services and the United States Department of Homeland Security under Rule 4(m). “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling those claims, although the opinion does not address whether any later filing would satisfy other legal requirements.
The court ordered Kamath to serve Steve Glumas by July 30, 2024, which was 90 days after the amended complaint was filed. The court stated that claims against him would be dismissed without prejudice if she failed to meet that deadline. The order disposed of Docket No. 75.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.