Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01823
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Foster denied service-related motions as moot or otherwise denied them.
Hollis J. Larson and the defendants involved in service of process, including the defendants represented by Paul Ziezulewicz and Michael Woods in his individual capacity.
What happened
In Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Hollis J. Larson asked the court for help serving defendants, including an order requiring the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Defendant Lindlbauer. He also sought contempt or default judgment against several defendants and asked the court to require defense counsel to accept service and appoint a lawyer for him.
Defense counsel said he could accept or waive service for all unserved defendants he represented, except Michael Woods in his individual capacity. The court ordered the represented defendants to answer or otherwise respond by December 1, 2023, and required counsel to file a status update that day.
Judge Foster denied the motion to effect service as moot. She denied the contempt and default-judgment motion as moot regarding its service-related requests and denied it in all other respects. She denied the motion to compel as moot for every defendant except Woods in his individual capacity, and denied it without prejudice as to Woods in that capacity.
The detailed version
- Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:23-cv-01823
- John Tunheim
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Hollis J. Larson filed three verified motions concerning service of process, which is the formal delivery of a lawsuit to a defendant:
- A motion asking the court to direct the U.S. Marshals Service or a court-appointed person to serve Defendant Lindlbauer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). - A motion seeking a contempt order and/or default judgment against Nicole Boder, Terrance Kneisel, John Barry, and Elizabeth Peterson, based in part on alleged refusal to accept service. - A motion seeking clarification about service on unserved defendants, an order requiring defense counsel to waive or accept service, and appointment of counsel.
Larson stated that he had been unable to serve Lindlbauer because Minnesota Sex Offender Program policy prevented him from obtaining Lindlbauer’s home address. The court had previously ordered defense counsel to address whether that policy interfered with service, whether it affected other unserved defendants, and whether counsel could accept service for those defendants.
Counsel’s Response and Court’s Reasoning
Defense counsel Paul Ziezulewicz represented that he was authorized to accept or waive service for all unserved defendants in their individual and official capacities, except Michael Woods in his individual capacity. Counsel stated that he would also represent Woods and accept or waive service for Woods if Woods received defense and indemnity.
Because counsel agreed to accept service for the represented defendants, the court concluded that Larson’s requests for assistance serving those defendants were moot—that is, no longer presented a live issue requiring relief. The court also found that sanctions were not warranted. It ordered all served and unserved defendants represented by Ziezulewicz to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by December 1, 2023. It also ordered Ziezulewicz to file a status-update letter on that date stating whether he remained unauthorized to represent any defendant in any capacity.
Rulings
The court ruled as follows:
- The motion for the court to effect service on Lindlbauer was DENIED AS MOOT.
- The motion for a contempt order, default judgment, or other relief was DENIED AS MOOT as to its requests for service-related relief and was DENIED in all other respects.
- The motion for clarification, to compel counsel to waive or accept service, and for appointment of counsel was DENIED AS MOOT as to all defendants other than Michael Woods in his individual capacity, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Woods in his individual capacity.
The order was signed by Dulce J. Foster, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.