Brink's Global Services USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc.

Background

Brink's Global Services USA, Inc. sued corporations and sole proprietorships that had contracted with Brink's to transport jewelry between shows. After an armored Brink's truck was burglarized at a California highway rest stop and jewelry was stolen, Brink's sought a declaration that its contract limited each defendant's maximum recovery to the value declared on that defendant's pickup manifest.

Brink's mailed each defendant a notice, a request to waive formal service of process, waiver forms, a copy of the complaint, and a prepaid return envelope. The corporate defendants' packets were mailed to addresses for their designated service agents listed in state records; packets for the sole proprietorships were mailed to addresses found through commercial databases. Brink's also sent the packets to attorneys representing the defendants in a related California action and left voicemail messages seeking waivers.

When no defendant returned a waiver, Brink's hired process servers and completed formal service. It later moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2) to recover $26,019.15 in service expenses and $1,215 in attorney fees, for a total request of $27,234.15. Two defendants, Arat Jewelry Corp. and El Dorado Jewelry, Inc., later settled with Brink's, and Brink's dismissed its claims against them with each side bearing its own fees and costs.

The parties' arguments

The defendants argued that Brink's could not recover because the waiver requests were addressed to the defendant companies rather than to specific officers or agents, and because the waiver forms allegedly contained errors. They also argued that some packets were sent to incorrect, vacant, or closed addresses; that the defendants' age, immigration status, and limited English ability supported a finding of good cause; and that Brink's should have located better addresses before sending the packets or incurring formal-service costs.

Brink's argued that it had substantially complied with Rule 4(d)(1), that the defendants had not shown actual prejudice, and that the alleged technical errors did not justify refusing to waive service.

Court's analysis

Rule 4(d) allows a plaintiff to request that a defendant waive formal service. If a domestic defendant fails to waive service without good cause, the court must impose the later costs of formal service and any reasonable attorney fees incurred to recover those costs.

Judge Moses applied the substantial-compliance standard. She ruled that Brink's failure to put the names of the corporate agents on the notices themselves was not fatal because the defendants presented no evidence that the packets failed to reach the proper recipients or that they were prejudiced. The court also rejected objections concerning the placement of defendants' names on the waiver forms and the alleged failure to include two waiver forms, finding no evidence that these issues confused or harmed the defendants.

The court rejected the address-based good-cause argument. The corporate addresses came from state records, and the defendants did not show that the packets failed to reach them. The court also found that the defendants offered no evidence that they were unable to understand the notices and waiver forms because of limited English literacy. Their counsel knew about the packets during the waiver period.

Finally, the court ruled that the award should be assessed separately against each of the 11 remaining defendants rather than jointly. The defendants were not formally affiliated, and the service costs differed substantially among them.

Disposition

The court granted in part Brink's motion to recover service costs and related attorney fees. It awarded a total of $25,437.16 against the 11 remaining defendants, with each defendant responsible for the individual amount listed in the order. The award excluded the service expenses for Arat Jewelry Corp. and El Dorado Jewelry, Inc., as well as the corresponding portion of the requested attorney fees, because those defendants had settled and Brink's had agreed to bear its own fees and costs as to them.

The court directed the clerk to close the motion at docket entry 85 and correct the plaintiff's name in the caption to “BRINK'S GLOBAL SERVICES USA, INC.”