Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Raimi Shoaga filed this action in 2021 against the City of Stockton and several individuals and businesses, alleging that defendants violated his rights when his car was improperly towed. Summons issued in January 2024 after he paid the filing fee. The City of Stockton answered through counsel (ECF No. 10), Anderson's Towing filed an answer without counsel (ECF No. 12), and Jose Guttierrez moved to dismiss while representing himself (ECF No. 17); none of the other defendants ever appeared.
The court previously granted Guttierrez's motion to dismiss, finding a defect of service apparent from the face of the return: the process server left the summons in Guttierrez's mailbox, a method Shoaga conceded in his opposition. The court ordered Shoaga to serve Guttierrez within fourteen days, but the January 8, 2025 proof of service again showed only that unspecified documents were mailed to Guttierrez's address, which the court held was an improper method of completing service. Guttierrez therefore was never properly served.
On May 5, 2026, Stockton and Shoaga filed a stipulation to dismiss Stockton (ECF No. 37), prompting the court to address that stipulation, Anderson's Towing's unauthorized answer, and service on the remaining defendants. The order recites the stipulation date as May 5, 2026, while the operative directive refers to the May 4, 2026 filing; the article preserves both dates as they appear in the source.
The Court’s Holding
The court directed the Clerk of Court to administratively terminate the City of Stockton under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) because both parties signed the stipulation, and it vacated the November 17, 2025 Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 33) in light of that stipulation. The court also directed the Clerk to disregard Anderson's Towing's answer (ECF No. 12) because a corporation or other entity may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney under Local Rule 183(a), and there was no indication that any licensed attorney represented Anderson's Towing.
The court further found that Anderson's Towing had not been properly served. The proof of service showed that a process server left the summons with someone identified only as "Fabian," but Shoaga failed to adequately demonstrate that Fabian was an officer or other agent authorized by appointment or law to accept service on the company's behalf under Rule 4(h). Combined with the defective service on Guttierrez, the court concluded that Shoaga had failed to demonstrate proper service on any remaining defendant.
Under Rule 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order service within a specified time, and it must extend the time if the plaintiff shows good cause. The court emphasized that pro se status and ignorance of service requirements do not themselves constitute good cause. It therefore ordered Shoaga to show cause within fourteen days why the action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m), and warned that failure to respond would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- The order administratively terminates the City of Stockton based on the parties' signed stipulation and vacates the November 17, 2025 Findings and Recommendations.
- Anderson's Towing's answer must be disregarded because a corporation cannot appear in federal court without a licensed attorney under Local Rule 183(a).
- Leaving the summons with a person identified only as "Fabian" did not establish service on Anderson's Towing absent proof that Fabian was authorized to accept service under Rule 4(h).
- The court found no demonstrated proper service on any remaining defendant, and it held that pro se status and ignorance of the service rules are not, by themselves, good cause for untimely service under Rule 4(m).
- Shoaga must respond within fourteen days to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service; only a failure to respond would produce a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice, so no dismissal of the remaining claims is imposed by this order.
Why It Matters
This is a substantive show-cause order, not a final dismissal of the remaining claims. It separates the stipulated administrative termination of Stockton from the unresolved service defects affecting the rest of the action, and it expressly preserves Shoaga's opportunity to demonstrate good cause for the failure to serve within the Rule 4(m) period.
The order also illustrates two distinct procedural requirements: proper service of process under Rule 4 and the requirement that corporate entities appear through counsel under Local Rule 183(a). Disregarding Anderson's Towing's answer does not itself establish that the company was validly served, nor does it cure the service deficiency; the show-cause response is the vehicle for resolving whether dismissal is ultimately warranted.