Domino

Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 12, 20204:19-cv-08449California836 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL DOMINO, Case No. 19-cv-08449-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SERVE OR TO PROVIDE LOCATION

9 v. OF UNSERVED DEFENDANTS

10 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 30, 2019. 13 Dkt. No. 1. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis 14 and ordered the United States Marshal to issue summons and serve the amended complaint upon 15 defendants. See Dkt. No. 12. On May 4, 2020, the United States Marshals Service filed an 16 executed summons, indicating that Jomel Garchitoerta, a manager at the Taco Bell and Kentucky 17 Fried Chicken restaurants located at 691 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, had accepted the 18 summons and service. Dkt. No. 25. However, Mr. Garchitoterta may not accept service on behalf of defendants who are corporate entities. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). 19 Federal Rule of Civil…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.