Truong v. Collins Aerospace System

Background

Lisa Truong, representing herself, sued Collins Aerospace System, Rosemount Aerospace Inc., and Seyfarth & Shaw LLP. She alleged that the defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating and retaliating against her. In particular, she claimed that Collins did not promote her because of an earlier action she filed against Collins alleging race and national-origin discrimination. She also alleged that, after she complained about the failed promotions, her manager changed her work instructions, micromanaged her, issued warnings, and that Collins suspended her for five weeks with pay without giving her a reason.

Service of Process

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5), which allow dismissal for insufficient process or insufficient service of process. The court explained that proper service is necessary for the court to exercise authority over a party and that Truong had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was proper.

Truong acknowledged that she initially did not serve the complaint on all three defendants. She later submitted a receipt showing express and first-class mail sent to unspecified locations in Charlotte, Chicago, and Burnsville, but the court found no evidence that those packages contained the summons and complaint. The court also found that the summonses were not delivered to officers, managers, or authorized agents of the corporate and partnership defendants. Seyfarth & Shaw LLP had no record of receiving a summons or complaint, and Truong declined the defendants’ offer to waive service.

Because the parties submitted evidence about service, the court treated the defendants’ motion as one for summary judgment for purposes of reviewing that evidence. Even so, the court concluded that Truong had not shown that she properly served all three defendants under the federal service rules.

Default Judgment

Truong sought default judgment, arguing that the defendants had not timely responded. The court denied that motion. It explained that a defendant may file a motion to dismiss instead of an answer and found that the defendants timely responded by filing their motion within 21 days of the magistrate judge’s order requiring them to respond.

Ruling

Judge John R. Tunheim granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Truong’s complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar her from filing a new complaint after making the necessary changes. The court denied Truong’s motion for default judgment. The court did not decide whether the alleged discrimination or retaliation violated Title VII.