Shaw v. Garcia

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAURENCE JAY SHAW, Case No. 24-cv-05826-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF 9 v. PROCESS 10 EDWIN DARIO MANZANO GARCIA, et Re: Dkt. No. 13 al., Defendants.

13 In August 2024, pro se Plaintiff Laurence Jay Shaw filed an application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). See Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia and Veronica Rosibel Manzano Garcia were previously employees of Plaintiff’s company in Guatemala. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that in October 2023, they “seized” online and physical assets from Plaintiff’s company, and began operating their own “counterfeit” company, Defendant Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC. Id. Plaintiff seeks a TRO preventing Defendants from using Plaintiff’s intellectual property and requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff re-access to his email and online accounts. See Dkt. No. 4.

21 The Court found that Plaintiff did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 65 for a TRO without notice to the adverse party. See Dkt. No. 10. The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to serve the complaint, the application for a TRO, and the Court’s order on Defendants by September 10, 2024, and to file a declaration and any supporting proof confirming that this was done by September 11, 2024. See id. In response, Plaintiff has filed a motion for alternative service. Dkt.

26 No. 13. In it, Plaintiff explains that Defendants still reside in Guatemala, and that service under the applicable treaty may “require[] months” and “cause undue delay.” Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff Guatemalan law firm to serve process by personally serving Defendants at their home or work.

2 Id. at ¶¶ 9–11.

3 As Plaintiff acknowledges, Guatemala is a signatory to the Inter-American Service Convention and Additional Protocol (“IACAP”), which details a specific process for serving Defendants. Although the IACAP process to serve Defendants may be time-intensive, the Court does not find this to be a sufficient reason to fashion a new protocol. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1) (providing for service of an individual in a foreign country “by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice . . . .”). The Court therefore DENIES the motion for alternative service. Dkt. No. 13.

10 Before the Court could issue an order addressing Plaintiff’s request for alternative service, Plaintiff filed two certificates of service. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. He purports to have served the individual Defendants through a lawyer and registered notary in Guatemala, who left the documents at their door. See Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff also purports to have served Defendant Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC through a registered agent in New Mexico. See Dkt. No. 14.

15 Despite any concerns the Court may have with the sufficiency of this service, at least Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia appears to have received actual notice of this lawsuit.

17 He filed a document styled as an “answer” to the complaint. Dkt. No. 16. On its face the document states that it “is filed by Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia and Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC.” Id. at 1. He also appears to have filed an “opposition” to the TRO on behalf of Defendant Veronica Rosibel Manzano Garcia. See Dkt. No. 18. The Court notes that as a pro se party, Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia is not permitted to represent or file documents on behalf of anyone else. See Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“[A] litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.”); cf. Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding that “a parent may not proceed pro se on her children’s behalf”). The document also appears to be in Spanish rather than English. The Court therefore STRIKES Dkt. No. 18 and directs the Clerk to remove it from the docket. Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia may re-file the document 1 The Court further notes that Plaintiff is not relieved of the obligation to properly serve Mr. Garcia just because Mr. Garcia appears to have received the court documents left at his door. See Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[N]either actual notice, nor simply || naming the person in the caption of the complaint, will subject defendants to personal jurisdiction if service was not made in substantial compliance with Rule 4.”). As noted above, Mr. Garcia was || not served properly under the IACAP and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(f)(1) and the Court did not approve any alternative means of service. “A federal court is without personal || jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. 9 P. 4.” Id. at 974-75 (quotations omitted).

10 The Court finds that additional time to serve the individual Defendants is warranted under 11 the circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall serve the individual Defendants under the IACAP || by January 16, 2025. By January 17, 2025, Plaintiff must file a declaration and any supporting 13 proof confirming that this was done, or alternatively, a status report (1) detailing where his efforts 14 stand to serve Defendants and (2) how much additional time he needs to serve them. The Court 15 || will hold the application for a TRO, Dkt. No. 4, in abeyance until Defendants have been properly 16 served.

3 17 The parties are encouraged to seek assistance at the Legal Help Center, which provides 18 free information and limited-scope legal assistance to pro se litigants. More information about the 19 Legal Help Center is provided at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help. Appointments may be || scheduled either over the phone at (415) 782-8982 or by email at 21 federalprobonoproject @ sfbar.org.

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 || Dated: 9/19/2024 24 Aaspprert □ Udy i 25 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge