Esquivel v. I.C. System, Inc.

1
25-cv-03229-AJB-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOE ESQUIVEL, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
I.C. SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-03229-AJB-VET
ORDER:
(1) DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE, AND
(2) DIRECTING ENTRY OF
DEFAULT
On March 11, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this
case should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service pursuant to Rule 4(m) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rule 4.1.b. (Doc. No. 3.) The next
day, Plaintiff Joe Esquivel filed a proof of service detailing that, on December 3, 2025, the
process server “SUBSTITUTE served by delivering a true copy of the Summons in a
Civil Action; Civil Cover Sheet; Class Action Complaint; Exhibit A with the date and
hour of service endorsed thereon by me to: David Gunderson as Corporate Controller,
a person employed therein and authorized to accept service for I.C. System, Inc. at the
address of: 444 Highway 96 E, Saint Pail, MN 55127, the within named person’s usual
place of Work, in compliance with State Statutes.” (Doc. No. 4 (emphasis in original).)
Case 3:25-cv-03229-AJB-VET Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
25-cv-03229-AJB-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff Counsel filed a declaration in response to the OSC, stating
that “[s]ervice of process was properly effected on Defendant within the applicable time
period; however, due to inadvertence and administrative oversight, the proof of service was
not timely filed with the Court.” (Doc. No. 5 ¶ 7.)
The Court notes two issues. First, Plaintiff Counsel appears to have incorrectly filed
the proof of service through the CM/ECF System as the docket text reads: “Summons
Returned Unexecuted by Joe Esquivel as to I.C. System, Inc.., SUMMONS Returned
Executed by Joe Esquivel. I.C. System, Inc. served.”, instead of reading “SUMMONS
Returned Executed by Joe Esquivel. I.C. Systems, Inc. served.” as it should if service was
properly effectuated. (Doc. No. 4.) Second, pursuant to Rule 4(h), a domestic corporation
can be served “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a
managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to
receive service of process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so
requires—by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant[.]” Under Minnesota law,
personal service of a “summons within the state . . . [u]pon a domestic or foreign
corporation[ is effectuated] by delivering a copy to an officer or managing agent, or to any
other agent authorized expressly or impliedly or designated by statute to receive service of
summons, and if the agent is one authorized or designated under statute to receive service
any statutory provision for the manner of such service shall be complied with.” Minn. R.
Civ. P. 4.03. As such, service here was personal—not substitute—service on a corporation.
Having found service was proper and timely, the Court DISCHARGES the OSC.
However, Plaintiff must withdraw and refile the proof of service using the correct
CM/ECF System function no later than March 20, 2026. Plaintiff Counsel is cautioned
to adhere to all Federal, Local, and Chambers rules in the future, including timely filing
proof of service.
Based on the proof of service, Defendant I.C. System, Inc., was service on
December 3, 2025. (Doc. No. 4.) More than ninety days have elapsed since service was
effectuated, and Defendant has failed to file an answer or otherwise respond to the
Case 3:25-cv-03229-AJB-VET Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
25-cv-03229-AJB-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaint. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter default against
Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Plaintiff must file a motion for default judgment no
later than thirty days from the docketing of this Order. See CivLR 55.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03229-AJB-VET Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3