San Diego Response To Joe Collins REDACTED

Case 3:17-cv-02467-MMA-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.
82 Page 1 of 2
1 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel (State Bar No. 109654)

County of San Diego
2 By JOSHUA M. HEINLEIN, Senior Deputy (State Bar No. 239236)
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 355
3 San Diego, California 92101-2469
Telephone: (619) 531-5850; Fax: (619) 531-6005
4 Email: joshua.heinlein@sdcounty.ca.gov
Exempt From Filing Fees (Gov. Code § 6103)
5
Attorneys for Defendant County of San Diego (also erroneously sued as “County of San
6 Diego DCSS”)
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JOE EDWARD COLLINS, III, ) No. 17cv2467-MMA (KSC)
)
12 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN
) DIEGO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
13 v. ) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
) COMPLAINT
14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DCSS, )
) Date: March 26. 2018
15 Defendant. ) Time: 2:30 p.m.
) Courtroom: 3D
16 ) Trial Date: None Set
)
17 ) Judge: Hon. Michael M. Anello
18
19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 26, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., or as soon
21 thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Honorable Michael M. Anello, in courtroom
22 3D, located at 333 W. Broadway, San Diego, California, Defendant, the County of San
23 Diego (“County”) (also erroneously sued as “County of San Diego DCSS”), will move to
24 dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to the following Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
25 Rule 12(b)(1) on grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(6) on
26 the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted; and
27 Rule 12(b)(5) on grounds that service of the complaint on the County was not properly
28 effectuated.
____________________________________________________________________________
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
Case 3:17-cv-02467-MMA-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.83 Page 2 of 2
1 The motion will be based upon this notice, the accompanying memorandum of
2 points and authorities and the declaration of Joshua M. Heinlein in support thereof, and
3 upon all papers and pleadings on file in this action.
4
5 DATED: February 13, 2018 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel
6 By: /s/JOSHUA M. HEINLEIN, Senior Deputy
7 Attorneys for Defendant County of San Diego
E-mail: joshua.heinlein@sdcounty.ca.gov
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
Case 3:17-cv-02467-MMA-KSC Document 8-1 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.84 Page 1 of 9

County of San Diego
Telephone: (619) 531-5850; Fax: (619) 531-6005
5
6 Diego DCSS”)
7
10
)
12 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN
) DIEGO’S MEMORANDUM OF
13 v. ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
) SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DCSS, ) DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
)
15 Defendant. ) Date: March 26, 2018
) Time: 2:30 p.m.
16 ) Courtroom: 3D
) Trial Date: None Set
17 )
) Judge: Hon. Michael M. Anello
18
19 Defendant County of San Diego (also erroneously sued as “County of San Diego
20 DCSS”) (“County” or “Defendant”) submits the following memorandum of points and
21 authorities in support of its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.
22 I.
23 INTRODUCTION
24 Plaintiff appears to allege a single claim against the County for a violation of
25 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) for actions the County allegedly took to enforce and
26 collect Plaintiff’s overdue, court-ordered child support obligations. Plaintiff’s Complaint
27 constitutes a de facto appeal of a state court judgment and should be dismissed under
28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1), pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman
____________________________________________________________________________
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 doctrine and/or Younger abstention principles. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s Complaint

2 consists almost entirely of conclusory statements and bare assertions that Plaintiff was
3 wronged. Thus, under Iqbal and Twombly, the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief,
4 and it should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
5 Lastly, Plaintiff failed to properly serve the Complaint. Rather than serving the
6 Complaint on the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the County, he simply mailed the
7 summons and complaint to the Department of Child Support Services (“DCSS”). Thus,
8 should the Court refuse to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for the aforesaid reasons, the
9 Court should dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) for improper service.
10 II.
11 PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNTY
12 The Complaint is nearly impossible to decipher. However, it appears that Plaintiff
13 alleges a claim for violation of Section 1983 by entering an order adjudging Plaintiff to
14 be the father of a child and ordering Plaintiff to pay child support. (ECF No. 1, p. 7, ll. 5-
15 16, pp. 13-20, 51-52.) Plaintiff asks this Court to “terminate the default child support
16 order, disestablish paternity which derived from the default order, and the San Diego
17 child Support Services to pay damages of $100,000,000.” (ECF No. 1, p. 11.)
18 III.
19 THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
20
21 A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
22 Procedure1 challenges a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Federal district courts are
23 courts of limited jurisdiction that “may not grant relief absent a constitutional or valid
24 statutory grant of jurisdiction” and are “presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case
25 unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A–Z Int’l v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145
26 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
27 1
Further reference to a “Rule” is to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless
28 otherwise specified.
-2-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 Rule 12(b)(1) motions may challenge jurisdiction facially or factually. Safe Air for
2 Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). “In a facial attack, the
3 challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their
4 face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger
5 disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal
6 jurisdiction.” Id.
7 Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against the County should be dismissed under Rule
8 12(b)(1) as lacking subject matter jurisdiction, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine2 and
9 the Younger abstention doctrine3, in light of:
10 (a) The state court’s child support order/judgment in San Diego Superior Court
11 Case No. DF260832, which Plaintiff has the right to challenge by direct appeal; and
12 (b) Plaintiff’s claims in this action being dependent on his argument that the
13 state-court child support orders/judgment are invalid.
14 A. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
15 The Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers
16 complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court
17 proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those
18 judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).
19 “The purpose of the doctrine is to protect state judgments from collateral attack in federal
20 courts. Because district courts lack power to hear direct appeals from state court
21 decisions, they must decline jurisdiction whenever they are ‘in essence being called upon
22 to review the state court decision.’” Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano
23 (“Napolitano”), 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Feldman, supra, 460 U.S.
24 at 482 n. 16). As a result, a district court must decline to hear “a forbidden de facto
25 appeal from a judicial decision of a state court” as well as any claims that are
26 2
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App.
27 v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
28 3
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
-3-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 “inextricably intertwined” with state court determinations. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,
2 1158 (9th Cir. 2003).
3 “It is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker-Feldman when the plaintiff in
4 federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court,
5 and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.” Id. at 1163. Claims are “inextricably
6 intertwined” if “the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or
7 require the district court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules.”
8 Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
9 marks and citation omitted); see also Napolitano, supra, 252 F.3d at 1030 (“Where the
10 district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the
11 plaintiff, the issues presented to both courts are inextricably intertwined.”).
12 “It is well-established that when a plaintiff brings a claim to federal court that
13 challenges the outcome of proceedings in family court, such a claim is barred by the
14 [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine.” Nadolski v. Winchester, No. 13-CV-2370-LAB-DHB, 2014
15 WL 3962473, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014) (collecting authority); see also Moore v.
16 Cnty. of Butte, 547 F. App’x 826, 829 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal on Rooker-
17 Feldman grounds a federal suit arising out of state court divorce and child custody
18 proceedings); Gomez v. San Diego Family Ct., 388 F. App’x 685 (9th Cir. 2010)
19 (affirming district court’s dismissal of action challenging state court child custody
20 decision under Rooker-Feldman); Sareen v. Sareen, 356 F. App’x 977 (9th Cir. 2009)
21 (affirming district court’s dismissal of action alleging constitutional violations in
22 plaintiff’s child custody proceedings under Rooker-Feldman).
23 In this action, Plaintiff asserts a claim against the County for the judgment and
24 enforcement of Plaintiff’s court-ordered child support obligations, on the grounds (as best
25 as the basis for Plaintiff’s Complaint can be ascertained) that, according to Plaintiff: (a)
26 the underlying support order/judgment is legally void or invalid; and (b) DCSS does not
27 comply with federal laws and regulations for child support agencies. (ECF No. 1, pp. 3-
28 ///
-4-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 9.) Plaintiff’s Complaint thus gives rise to the exact problems that the Rooker-Feldman
2 doctrine was developed to avoid.
3 Specifically, in order for Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim to be adjudicated, this
4 Court would have to decide whether the Superior Court of California was correct to enter
5 judgment against Plaintiff and to order him to pay child support. “The purpose of the
6 [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine is to protect state judgments from collateral attack in federal
7 courts. Because district courts lack power to hear direct appeals from state court
8 decisions, they must decline jurisdiction whenever they are in essence being called upon
9 to review the state court decision.” Napolitano, supra, 252 F.3d at 1030 (internal citation
10 omitted). Plaintiff’s claims and allegations in this action collaterally attack the state child
11 support judgment and orders, and would necessarily require this Court to “in essence . . .
12 review the state court decision.” Id. This the Court cannot do.
13 Moreover, in this action Plaintiff attacks the state and local public entities’ means
14 and efforts to enforce and collect the state court child support judgment and orders. A
15 finding by this Court or a federal jury that the County cannot take action to collect from
16 Plaintiff his overdue child support payments without violating Section 1983 would
17 severely undermine the enforceability of the state-court child support judgment and
18 orders. Plaintiff’s claims in this case are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court
19 rulings and proceedings, as “the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the
20 state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of state laws or
21 procedural rules.” Reusser, supra, 525 F.3d at 859.
22 Accordingly, this Court should find that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
23 Plaintiff’s claims based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and dismiss Plaintiff’s
24 Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1).
25 B. Younger Abstention
26 “The Supreme Court in Younger ‘espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal
27 court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.’” H.C. ex rel. Gordon v.
28 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Koppel”), quoting Middlesex Cnty. Ethics
-5-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). “Absent extraordinary
2 circumstances, Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing,
3 (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff with an adequate
4 opportunity to litigate federal claims.” Koppel, 203 F.3d at 613.
5 The first requirement is satisfied, since Plaintiff’s Complaint admits that the state-
6 court proceedings are ongoing. Second, “[i]mportant state interests are also implicated.
7 ‘Family relations are a traditional area of state concern.’” Koppel, supra, 203 F.3d at
8 613, quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979). The Superior Court of California
9 “has a vital interest in protecting ‘the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders
10 and judgments are not rendered nugatory.’” Id., quoting Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327,
11 336 n.12 (1977). “This is a particularly appropriate admonition in the field of domestic
12 relations, over which federal courts have no general jurisdiction, . . . and in which the
13 state courts have a special expertise and experience.” Id. (citations omitted). Third, since
14 the Superior Court of California is a state court of general jurisdiction, Plaintiff has an
15 adequate forum in which to pursue his federal claims. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458
16 (1990)(“[W]e have consistently held that state courts have inherent authority, and are
17 thus presumptively competent, to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United
18 States”). Indeed, Plaintiff may directly appeal the judgment in the pending family court
19 case. Thus, Younger abstention is appropriate, and this Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s
20 Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1).
21 IV.
22 THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
23
24 Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that it
25 “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The Court reviews whether a
26 complaint states sufficient facts and a cognizable legal theory in light of Rule 8(a), which
27 requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
28 relief.” Although Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it [does]
-6-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 demand[] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

2 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
3 544, 555 (2007)). In other words, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his
4 ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
5 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
6 “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
7 enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
8 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
9 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.
10 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A claim is facially
11 plausible when the facts alleged “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that
12 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
13 556). The claim need not necessarily be probable, but there must be “more than a sheer
14 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Facts “‘merely consistent with’ a
15 defendant’s liability” fall short of a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. (quoting Twombly,
16 550 U.S. at 557). Further, the Court need not accept as true “legal conclusions”
17 contained in the complaint. Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court
18 to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it
19 has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id.
20 A complaint must also comply with Rule 8, which requires a “short and plain
21 statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that “each allegation [] be simple,
22 concise, and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A court should dismiss a complaint for
23 failing to comply with Rule 8 where it does not provide the defendant with fair notice of
24 the wrongs allegedly committed. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir.
25 1996) (upholding dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with
26 redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).
27 The Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 or the standards set forth in Iqbal and
28 Twombly. The first two and half pages consist of rambling interpretations of various
-7-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 federal statutes and supposed quotes from Black’s Law Dictionary. (ECF No. 1, pp. 3-5.)
2 Thereafter, without any factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts that the County “knowingly
3 and intentionally used deceit, fraud and negligently misrepresented their program, to
4 deprive the Injured Party of Due Process by failing to adhere to their own law governing
5 their child support program to default the Injured Party of into a personal responsibility
6 contract failing to address that this program is voluntary.” (ECF No. 1, p. 5, ll. 10-13.)
7 The Complaint goes on to assert, without alleging any facts, that the County committed
8 fraud to obtain federal funding (ECF No. 1, pp. 5-6), and that the County “trespassed”
9 against Plaintiff’s private property (ECF No. 1, p. 7.) The Complaint concludes with
10 more citations to various cases, statutes, and provisions of the California Constitution.
11 (Id. at pp. 8-9.)
12 In sum, the Complaint contains nothing but bare assertions without any factual
13 allegations showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Therefore, should the Court decline
14 to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as discussed above, the
15 Court should dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
16 V.
17 THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR
INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS
18
19 Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for
20 insufficient service of process. To properly serve a local government, a plaintiff must
21 either (a) deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to the local government’s chief
22 executive officer, or (b) serve a copy of the summons and complaint in compliance with
23 the state’s law for service of process on a local government. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2). “A
24 summons may be served on a public entity by delivering a copy of the summons and of
25 the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its
26 governing body.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.50(a); see also, Weil and Brown,
27 California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, (Rutter Group 2016) 4:174-
28 4:176. The County of San Diego does not have a “president, presiding officer or other
-8-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 head.” However, pursuant to Government Code section 53051(c), the County has
2 identified its “clerk” or “secretary” on its Roster of Public Agencies Filing (which is filed
3 with the California Secretary of State) as the “Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.”
4 (Declaration of Joshua M. Heinlein (“Heinlein Decl.”), Ex. 1.) Therefore, service of
5 process on the County is properly effectuated by personally serving the Clerk of the
6 Board of Supervisors. A federal court may dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to
7 properly serve it. See Ezell v. Dep't of Rehab., 530 F. App’x 626, 627 (9th Cir. 2013)
8 (trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing action when plaintiff failed to properly
9 serve a public entity).
10 Here, rather than serving the Clerk of the Board for the County, Plaintiff mailed a
11 copy of the summons and complaint to the County DCSS. (ECF No. 7.) On February 5,
12 2018, the County notified Plaintiff that such mailing did not constitute proper service.
13 (Heinlein Decl., Ex. 2.) After receiving the County’s letter, Plaintiff simply mailed a
14 copy of the summons and Complaint to County Counsel. (Heinlein Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff
15 never served the Clerk of the Board. Consequently, if the Court does not dismiss the
16 Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6), as discussed above, then it should
17 dismiss the Complaint for insufficient service of process under rule 12(b)(5).
18 VI.
19 CONCLUSION
20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss the Complaint for lack of
21 subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Should the Court decline to do so,
22 the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to failure to state claim on which relief can
23 be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Lastly, if the Court decides not to dismiss the
24 Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), the Court should dismiss it for
25 insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5).
26 DATED: February 13, 2018 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel
27 By: /s/JOSHUA M. HEINLEIN, Senior Deputy
Attorneys for Defendant County of San Diego
28 E-mail: joshua.heinlein@sdcounty.ca.gov
-9-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)

County of San Diego
Telephone: (619) 531-5850; Fax: (619) 531-6005
5
6 Diego DCSS”)
7
10
)
12 Plaintiff, ) DECLARATION OF JOSHUA M.
) HEINLEIN IN SUPPORT OF
13 v. ) DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN
) DIEGO’S MOTION TO DISMISS
14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DCSS, ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
)
15 Defendant. ) Date: March 26, 2018
) Time: 2:30 p.m.
16 ) Courtroom: 3D
) Trial Date: None Set
17 )
) Judge: Hon. Michael M. Anello
18
19 I, Joshua M. Heinlein, declare:
20 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and a Senior
21 Deputy County Counsel with the Office of County Counsel for the County of San Diego. I am
22 familiar with the facts of this case and, if called upon, could and would testify to the facts set
23 forth below based on my personal knowledge.
24 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Statement of Facts
25 Roster of Public Agencies Filing filed by the County of San Diego with the California Secretary
26 of State as required by Government Code section 53051. The filing lists the County’s
27 “Secretary or Clerk” as being the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
28 ///
____________________________________________________________________________
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 3. On February 5, 2018, I sent Plaintiff a letter notifying him that he had not properly
2 served the Complaint in this case on the County of San Diego. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a
3 true and correct copy of my letter.
4 4. On February 13, 2018, my office received a pack from Plaintiff. In it was a
5 returned copy of my February 5 letter along with a copy of the summons and Complaint.
6 Plaintiff did not personally serve the summons and Complaint on the Clerk of the Board of
7 Supervisors.
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
9 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of February, 2018, at San Diego,
10 California.
11
12
JOSHUA M. HEINLEIN
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
EXHIBIT 1
State of California FILED

Secretary of State E==bcia;:(r.
STATEMENT OF FACTS February 29, 2016

ROSTER OF PUBLIC AGENCIES FILING By. —
(Government Code Section 53051)
Deputy
Instructions:
I. Complete and mail lo: Secretary of Slate,
P.O. Box 942577, Sacramento, CA 94277-0001 (916) 653-W84
2. A street address must be given as the official mailing address or as (Office Use Only)
the address of the presiding officer.
3. Complete fiddrcsses as required.
4. If you need additional space, please include information on an 8”2X 11 page.
New Filing D UpdateJ
Legal name of Public Agency Board of Supervisors of lhe County of San Diego
Nature of Update: New Officers
County: County of San Diego
Oflicial Mailing Address: 1600 Pacific Hiehway, Room 402, San Diego. CA 92101-247 1
Name and Address of each member of the governing board:
Chairman, President or other Presiding Officer (Indicate Title): Chairman
Name: RON ROBERTS Address: Same as above
Secretary or Clerk (Indicate Title): Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Name: DAVID HALL Address: Same as above
Members:
Name: RON ROBERTS, Chairman Address: Same as above
Name: DIANNE JACOB. Vice-Chairwoman Address: Same as above
Name: DAVE ROBERTS, Chairman Pm Tern Address: Same as above
Name: GREG COX Address: Same as above
Name: BILL HORN Address: Same as above
RETURN ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO: (Type or Print) February 5, 2016

Date \
NAME [ Clerk of the Board olSupervisors
/‘.
Signature
ADDRESS [ 1600 Pacific Hwy. tIm 402
David Hall
CJTY/STATE)ZIP [ San Diego, CA 92101 1 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Typed Name and Title
SF.C5TATENP/SP4O IREV fl5O9

EXHIBIT 2
QInuut of $an Uieu

ThOMAS E. MONTGOMERY OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL JOSHUA M. HEINLEIN
COUNTY COUNSEL SENIOR DEPUTY
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY. ROOM 355. SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
Died 0,1: (619)531.6650
(619) 531-4860 Fax (619) 531-6005 E-Mail: J,shca He r. an,das,ty gcv
February 5, 2018
Joe E. Collins, III

11705 Willake Street
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
RE: Joe Edward Collins, III v. County ofSan Diego Department of Child Support
Services; United States District Court Case No. 17-C V-02467-MMA (KSC)
Dear Mr. Collins:
The County of San Diego Office of County Counsel understands that you have
filed a Complaint with the United States District Court, Southern District of California.
Please direct all ifiture communication regarding this claim to me, and not to the
Department of Child Support Services. Also, I understand that in this case a copy of the
Complaint was mailed to the County department. This was not effective service of
process on the County of San Diego.
The Complaint and Summons must be personally served on the County of

San Diego- Fed. R. Civ. P. 41j)(2). Service on the County is properly made by delivering
a copy of the Summons, Complaint, and related papers to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors.’ Code of Civil Procedure § 416.50(a).
Please properly serve your Complaint on the County of San Diego.
Very truly yours,
THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel
By/t€t
JOSHUA M. HEINLEIN, Senior Deputy
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is located in the County Administrative

Center at 1600 Pacific Highway. Room 402, in San Diego, California.

County of San Diego
Telephone: (619) 531-5850; Fax: (619) 531-6005
4 E-mail: Joshua.heinlein@sdcounty.ca.gov
Exempt from Filing Fees (Gov’t Code § 6103)
5
Attorneys for Defendant County of San Diego Department of Child Support Services
6
7
10
11 JOE EDWARD COLLINS, III, ) No. 17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
)
12 Plaintiff, )
) PROOF OF SERVICE
13 v. )
)
14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DCSS )
) Date: March 26, 2018
15 Defendant. ) Time: 2:30 p.m.
) Dept.: 3D
16 ) Trial Date: None
)
17 ) Judge: Michael M. Anello
18
19 I, ODETTE ORTEGA, declare: That I am over the age of eighteen years and not a
20 party to the case; I am employed in, or am a resident of, the County of San Diego,
21 California where the service occurred; and my business address is: 1600 Pacific
22 Highway, Room 355, San Diego, California.
23 On February 13, 2018, I served the following documents:
24 1) DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
25 MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT;
26 2) DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
27 AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
28 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; and
No. 17cv2467-MMA(KSC)
1 3) DECLARATION OF JOSHUA M. HEINLEIN IN SUPPORT OF

2 DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'S MOTION TO DISMISS
3 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT.
4 In the following manner:
5 C8J (BY MAIL) By placing a copy in a separate envelope, with postage fully prepaid, for
6 each addressee named above and depositing each in the U.S. Mail at San Diego,
7 California.
8 Joe E. Collins, III
11 705 Willake Street
9
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
10 Ph: (858) 882-7519
Email: joecollins47@gmail.com
11
(Plaintiff in Pro Per)
12
13 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
14 on February 13, 2018, at San Diego, California.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2-
No. I7cv2467-MMA(KSC)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

San Diego Response To Joe Collins REDACTED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

San Diego Response To Joe Collins REDACTED

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Diego Response To Joe Collins REDACTED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:17-cv-02467-MMA-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.

1 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel (State Bar No. 109654)

1 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel (State Bar No. 109654)

1 doctrine and/or Younger abstention principles. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s Complaint

1 demand[] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

1 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel (State Bar No. 109654)

State of California FILED

STATEMENT OF FACTS February 29, 2016

RETURN ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO: (Type or Print) February 5, 2016

SF.C5TATENP/SP4O IREV fl5O9

QInuut of $an Uieu

Joe E. Collins, III

The Complaint and Summons must be personally served on the County of

Please properly serve your Complaint on the County of San Diego.

Very truly yours,

THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel

The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is located in the County Administrative

1 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel (State Bar No. 109654)

1 3) DECLARATION OF JOSHUA M. HEINLEIN IN SUPPORT OF

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

You might also like