Automated Summary
Key Facts
On August 5, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding proper service of Individual Defendants. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on June 14, 2025, with a July 11, 2025 deadline for service. Plaintiff Michael Camacho failed to demonstrate proper service on nine Individual Defendants (John Sears, Stephen Stout, James Dobney, Peter Thompson, Denise Anderson, Gregory Fults, Gordon Brownlow, Deborah McKane, Richard Novak) despite multiple extensions of time granted. The Court found that service on Cen Pac Properties was improper as they are only the fiscal agent for the Association of Apartment Owners of Ke Nani Kai, not authorized to accept service for the Individual Defendants. The Court recommends dismissal of Individual Defendants without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to properly serve them.
Issues
- The court evaluates whether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause or excusable neglect warranting an extension of the deadline for serving individual defendants, despite multiple prior extensions granted throughout the case's pendency. The court finds Plaintiff's failure to provide any explanation for the delay and concludes no further extension is appropriate.
- The court considers whether Cen Pac Properties, which serves as fiscal agent for the Association of Apartment Owners of Ke Nani Kai (AOAO), has authority to accept service of process on behalf of the individual defendants who are former board members and resident manager of the condominium project. The court finds Cen Pac Properties is not and has never been authorized to accept service of process for the individual defendants.
- The court addresses whether Plaintiff Michael Camacho properly served the nine individual defendants (John Sears, Stephen Stout, James Dobney, Peter Thompson, Denise Anderson, Gregory Fults, Gordon Brownlow, Deborah McKane, and Richard Novak) as required under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(e) and 4(f). The court examines the validity of service made on Cen Pac Properties as an agent for the defendants and finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate timely and proper service, recommending dismissal without prejudice.
Holdings
The Court finds that Plaintiff Michael Camacho has failed to demonstrate timely and proper service of the Second Amended Complaint and respective Summonses for the Individual Defendants (John Sears, Stephen Stout, James Dobney, Peter Thompson, Denise Anderson, Gregory Fults, Gordon Brownlow, Deborah McKane, and Richard Novak). Despite multiple extensions of time granted, Plaintiff has been unable to effect proper service on the Individual Defendants. The Court recommends dismissal without prejudice as to the Individual Defendants and finds no good cause to further extend the deadline for service.
Remedies
The Court recommends dismissal of the Individual Defendants without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate timely and proper service of the Second Amended Complaint and respective Summonses
Legal Principles
The court applies the burden of proof principle requiring the party claiming proper service to establish its validity, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(e) and 4(f) for service requirements and Rule 4(m) for the 90-day deadline. The court also applies the 'good cause' standard for extending service deadlines, noting that good cause means excusable neglect at minimum.
Precedent Name
- Katz v. United States
- Cranford v. United States
- In re Sheehan
- Boudette v. Barnette
- Wei v. State of Hawaii
Cited Statute
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
Judge Rom A. Trader
Passage Text
- Plaintiff fails to refute that Cen Pac Properties 'is not and has never been authorized by the AOAO to accept service of process for the AOAO.' Furthermore, he does nothing to refute that Cen Pac Properties 'and its officers or employees are not agents for [the Individual Defendants].' Thus, Plaintiff's insistence that service of the Individual Defendants by again serving Cen Pac Properties remains, as before, completely improper.
- After considering the aforesaid factors, the Court finds they militate against yet another extension. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to further extend the time for service on the Individual Defendants.
- For the reasons set forth below, this Court FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate timely and proper service and therefore RECOMMENDS that the Individual Defendants be dismissed without prejudice.