Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

Hollis J. Larson filed this case and later paid the filing fee after the court denied his application to proceed without paying that fee. The court required him to file proof that the defendants had been served. Larson initially sent service-waiver materials to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. He later hired a process server and personally served several defendants in their individual capacities, but those service attempts did not include waiver forms.

Larson sought $1,912 in service expenses and related legal fees. He argued that the defendants had failed to waive service without good cause. Counsel for the Department of Human Services defendants disputed that any defendant had refused to waive service and argued that Larson had not properly requested waivers from the individual defendants.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) generally requires certain defendants to avoid unnecessary service costs. A plaintiff requesting a waiver must send a written request that meets specified requirements, including addressing the request to the individual defendant or an authorized agent, providing required documents and information, and allowing at least 30 days to return the waiver. If a defendant in the United States fails to waive service without good cause, the court must impose the later service expenses and reasonable expenses of a motion seeking those costs.

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant refused a proper request to waive service.

Individual-capacity defendants

The court held that Larson did not satisfy the requirements for defendants sued in their individual capacities. His waiver requests were sent only to Attorney General Keith Ellison and were not addressed to any individual defendant. Because the requests were procedurally deficient, they could not support an award of service expenses for the individual-capacity defendants.

Official-capacity defendants

Larson also sought expenses for serving defendants in their official capacities. The court explained that Rule 4(d)’s waiver provisions apply to certain individuals and entities but exclude states and state agencies. Courts disagree about whether state officials sued in their official capacities are covered by Rule 4(d) or instead must be served under Rule 4(j), the rule governing service on governments and certain governmental entities.

The court found the reasoning for applying Rule 4(j) more persuasive because an official-capacity suit is treated as a suit against the state and Minnesota law provides for service by delivering the summons and complaint to the Office of the Attorney General. The court did not need to definitively resolve the disagreement among courts, however. It held that the uncertainty in the law, together with the absence of clearly binding Eighth Circuit precedent on the issue, constituted good cause for the defendants’ failure to waive service.

Disposition

The court denied Larson’s Verified Motion for Service Expenses. The order did not award the requested service costs or related fees.