Opinion
21-cv-07361-BLF
06-16-2022
KUANG-BAO PAUL OU-YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER SUMMARIZING STATUS OF SERVICE OF PROCESS RE ALL DEFENDANTS; AND DISMISSING ALL REMAINING NON-FEDERAL DEFENDANTS FOR LACK OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
BETH LAB SON FREEMAN, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young's first amended complaint (“FAC”) names 216 individuals and entities as defendants. See FAC, ECF 21. Many of those defendants have been dismissed, and the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss additional defendants at this time. Below, the Court summarizes the status of service of process with regarding all defendants.
10 Defendants Named in Original Complaint Dismissed for Lack of Service
On January 25, 2022, the Court dismissed the following 10 defendants named in the original complaint, without prejudice, for lack of service of process: John Chase, Jeanette Tonini, Karl Sandoval, Karan Dhadialla, Jose Martinez, Christopher Rudy, Joseph Huber, State of California, State Bar of California, and Edmund G. Brown, Jr. See Order, ECF 17. Plaintiff improperly renamed those 10 defendants in the FAC. See FAC, ECF 21. Plaintiff did not have leave of the Court to rename those 10 defendants, and he still has not filed proof of service of process as to those defendants. The Court clarifies that those 10 defendants have been DISMISSED from this action WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to suing them in a new action. See 4B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1137 (“A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m) for failure to serve process is intended to leave the plaintiff in the same position as if the action never had been filed.).
108 Defendants Dismissed Pursuant to Pre-Filing Review Orders
On March 15, 2022, the Court dismissed 108 defendants identified as federal judges on the basis that Plaintiff failed to obtain leave of court to sue them as required by applicable pre-filing review orders. See Order, ECF 26. The 108 dismissed federal judges are listed in the order issued on March 15, 2022. See id. The Court clarifies that those 108 defendants have been DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to suing them in a new action, subject to the applicable pre-filing review orders.
5 Defendants Dismissed on the Merits following Motion to Dismiss
On May 10, 2022, the Court granted a motion to dismiss brought by 5 defendants, the County of Santa Clara and four County officials. See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss, ECF 32. Dismissal of those 5 defendants was WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and WITH PREJUDICE. See Id. 11 Defendants now Subject to Dismissal for Failure to Serve Process
The remaining 93 defendants fall into two groups: 82 individuals and entities that are affiliated with the federal government (“Federal Defendants”), and 11 individuals and entities that are not affiliated with the federal government (“Non-Federal Defendants”). Plaintiff has not filed proof of service on the Non-Federal Defendants, and his deadline to do so has elapsed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to serve process within the time provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) would result in dismissal of unserved defendants without further notice. See Order, ECF 26. Accordingly, the 11 Non-Federal Defendants listed below are HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to suing them in a new action. See 4B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1137 (“A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m) for failure to serve process is intended to leave the plaintiff in the same position as if the action never had been filed.).
One of the 82 Federal Defendants is identified as “Members of the 107th Congress are U.S. senators or representatives 14 who served between January 3, 2001 and January 3, 2003.” FAC ¶ a.214. The Court follows Plaintiff's lead in treating that group as a single defendant. See id.
Laurie Mikkelsen
Gavin C. Newsom
Shirley Weber
Robert A. Bonta
Jeffrey R. Vincent
Lora D. Curtis
Rolando Pasquali
Kimberly McCrickard
Twitter, Inc.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Google, Inc.
82 Remaining Defendants
In light of the dismissals summarized above, there are a total of 82 defendants remaining in this case, all affiliated with the federal government. The United States has filed a motion to dismiss those 82 Federal Defendants in their official capacities, and it urges the Court to dismiss sua sponte all Federal Defendants in their individual capacities. See Fed. Defs.' Mot., ECF 39. The United States' motion is not yet fully briefed. Once briefed, the motion will be addressed in a separate order.