Platt v. Carteret Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.

Decision Date30 August 2022
Docket NumberCIVIL 4:21-CV-1241-O
PartiesMICHAEL W. PLATT, Plaintiff, v. CARTERET COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST NJIDEKA N. WHITE, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE, AND DEFENDANT NJIDEKA N. WHITE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
JEFFREY L. CURETON UNJTCD STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court are three documents: (1) Plaintiff Michael W. Platt (“Platf'fs Motion for Default Judgment against Njideka N. White [doc. 31], filed April 18, 2022; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave [doc. 32], filed April 25 2022; and (3) Defendant Njideka White (“White”)'s Motion to Dismiss and Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment [doc 33], filed April 26, 2022. The Court, having carefully considered the motions, the parties' submissions, and all relevant applicable law, recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Njideka N. White [doc, 31] be DENIED, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave (regarding damages associated with Default Judgment) [doc. 32] be DENIED AS MOOT, and Defendant Njideka N, White's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Platt filed his Original Complaint on November 10, 2021 [doc. 1], On February 16, 2022, Platt filed his proof of service for White and the other Defendants. The proof of service indicates that a copy of the summons and complaint was delivered via certified mail to White at the address of Carteret County Department of Human Services (CCDHS) in Beaufort, North Carolina.[1] On January 10, 2022, Platt filed his Amended Complaint [doc. 11], naming White as one of several Defendants. The Court issued an Order Regarding Failure to File Proof of Service [doc. 20] on February 15, 2022, instructing Platt to file, no later than March 1, 2022, either proof of proper service as required by Rule 4.1 of the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas or an instrument in affidavit form establishing why such proof cannot be filed.

On April 11, 2022, the Court issued its Notice of Intention to Dismiss without Prejudice [doc. 30], ordering that Platt, should he desire to pursue his claims against White, file a Request for Clerk's Entry of Default and a Motion for Default Judgment no later than April 25, 2022, or his claim against White would be dismissed. On April 18, 2022, Platt filed his Motion for Default Judgment against White [doc. 31], On April 25, 2022, Platt filed his Motion for Leave (regarding damages associated with Default Judgment) [doc. 32], requesting permission from the Court to file “further documentation regarding damages attributable to [] White.” (Plaintiffs Motion for Leave (“Pl.'s Mot. for Leave”) at 1.) White filed her Motion to Dismiss and Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment [doc. 33] on April 26, 2022.

In his Motion for Default Judgment, Platt states that [a]s indicated by the proof of service filed on February 16, 2022, Defendant Njideka N. White was served on November 26, 2021, sixteen days after the filing of Plaintiffs Original Complaint” and that [a]s of the date of this filing, [] White has failed to file any answer or enter any appearance in this matter and thus is in default.” (Pl.'s Mot. for Default at 1 (internal citations omitted).) Platt requests that the Court enter an Order of Default against White and, inter alia., “enjoin her from refusing to withdraw the findings that Plaintiff abused his son.” (Id. at 2.)

In her Motion to Dismiss and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, White asserts several bases for dismissal and asserts that default should not be entered against her.[2] As to the alleged improper service, White argues that Plaintiff did not properly serve [her] with the Original Complaint,” because Plaintiff sent the Original Summons and Complaint to the CCDHS alone.” (Defendant White's Motion to Dismiss and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (“Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss) at 3.) White states she “was no longer an employee or associated with the CCDHS at the time the summons was sent to the CCDHS,” and that she “left her job with the CCDHS as of April 2021, and [,] consequently [,] did not receive it or have notice of the Complaint.” Id. at 3-4, Also, in her Motion, White asserts Platt's action against her should be dismissed because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over her. In support, White argues that she is a “North Carolina resident who has never set foot in Texas, has not conducted business in Texas, and has not otherwise voluntarily reached into this forum.” Id. at 4.

IL LEGAL STANDARD

A Rule 12(b)(5) motion “challenges the mode of delivery or lack of delivery of the summons and complaint.” Byrd v. Comfort Inn-Tupelo, Miss., No 1:18-CV-00036-GHD-RP, 2018 WL 2306891, at *1 (N.D. Miss. May 21, 2018). The motion's trajectory “turns on the legal sufficiency of the service of process.” Id., citing Holly v. Metro Transit Auth., 213 Fed.Appx. 343, 344 (5thh Cir. 2007). Ultimately, when a challenge regarding service is presented to the court, the party making service bears the burden to demonstrate that the service was valid. Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1346 (5th Cir. 1992).

Rule 12(b)(6) allows motions to dismiss for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Courts are limited under 12(b)(6) to the four-corners of the texts; they may not look beyond the face of the pleadings. See Baker v. Pitfnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996); see also McCartney v. First City Bank, 970 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992). Additionally, the district court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. First City Bank, 970 F.2d at 47. “A well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of facts is improbable and that ‘recovery is very remote and unlikely.' Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007); see also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45 (1957) ([T]he accepted rule [is] that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts,”). Nonetheless, a plaintiff must provide the court in its pleadings with “more than labels and conclusions,” as “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. When a pleading has “not nudged [its] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [the] complaint must be dismissed.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Default Judgment

A threshold issue before the Court is whether Platt's service on White was proper, and, thus, whether Platt is entitled to a Default Judgment against White. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that a summons and copy of the complaint must be served on each Defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). An individual within a judicial district of the United States may be served by, inter alia, “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought... in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1) (emphasis added).

The district court in which this action resides is located in Texas. Regarding service of process, Texas state law provides the following methods for proper service: (1) delivering to the defendant, in person, a copy of the citation, showing the delivery date, and of the petition; or (2) mailing to the defendant by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the citation and of the petition.” Tex.R.Civ.P. 106(a)(1)-(2). Additionally, “(t]he officer or authorized person executing the citation must complete a return of service” and [w]hen the citation was served by registered or certified mail as authorized by Rule 106, the return by the officer or authorized person must also contain the return receipt with the addressee's signature.” Tex.R.Civ.P. 107(a),(c). Notably, [a] number of Texas cases have held that Rule 107 requires a showing of the connection between the person signing for the process and the actual addressee.” Asset Prot. & Sec. Serv. 's, L.P. v. Armijo, 570 S.W.3d 377, 383 (Tex. App. 2019) citing Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dis/., 180 S.W.3d 903, 905 (Tex. App. 2005, pet. denied)

Further interpreting Rule 107, Texas Courts have held that [i]f the individual who signs the receipt of delivery is not the addressee or an agent otherwise capable of receiving service, service of process is invalid.” Asset Prot. & Sec. Serv. 's, 570 S.W.3d at 384, citing Master Cap. Sol. 's Corp. v. Araujo, 456 S.W.3d 636, 639-40 (Tex. App. 2015, no pet.) (Because there was no showing in the record that the person who signed for the certified mailing was authorized to do so, the face of the record failed to show strict compliance with the rules); see also Southwestern Sec. Serv. 's, Inc. v. Gamboa, 172 S.W.3d 90, 92-93 (Tex. App. 2005, no pet.) (“If the return receipt is not signed by the addressee, the service of process is defective.”)

There are no presumptions of valid service of process and “|m]oreover, failure to affirmatively show strict compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure renders the attempted service of process invalid and of no effect.” Armendariz v. Barragan, 143 S.W.3d 853, at 855 (Tex. App. 2004) citing Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 690 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex. 1985). “For well over a century, [the Texas Supreme Court] has required that strict compliance with the rules of service of citation affirmatively appear on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT