Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MICHAEL C. SCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM*
Michael C. Scher appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging federal claims against numerous individuals and the City of Las Vegas arising from court proceedings related to a traffic violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's decision regarding the sufficiency of service of process. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). We vacate and remand.
The district court dismissed Scher's action without prejudice for failure to effectuate proper service in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Scher only sent the summons and a copy of the complaint via certified mail. However, the record shows that Scher also submitted proofs of service indicating that the Las Vegas Constable's Office served all defendants, personally or through representatives authorized to accept service of process, within the prescribed time. Moreover, in their reply to Scher's opposition to their motion to dismiss, defendants note Scher's “apparent sufficiency of service upon the City of Las Vegas,” but the district court did not reference this in its dismissal order, or address whether service effectuated through the Las Vegas Constable's Office was proper with respect to the individual defendants. Thus, we vacate and remand for the district court to revisit whether service of process on the City of Las Vegas and on the individual defendants was proper.
Scher's pending motion is denied.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-16127
Decided: November 23, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)