Espinoza v. Humphries, No. 21-11202 (5th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Plaintiff sued Defendant in a Texas federal court to recover unpaid legal fees. The federal rules allow service under the law of the state “where service is made,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), so Plaintiff tried serving Defendant by publication under Florida law. But that publication notice was defective. Noting that defect, Defendant moved to vacate his default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). But the district court declined and soon entered a default judgment.

The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment. The court held that it was an error for the district court to decline to consider Defendant’s objection to improper service. The court explained that because Defendant was never properly served, he showed good cause to set aside his default and the default judgment that followed.

Download PDF

Case: 21-11202 Document: 00516426454 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 10, 2022 No. 21-11202 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Edmundo Espinoza, an individual, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Steven Eugene Humphries, an individual, also known as Steve Humphries, also known as Steven H. Humphries, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:19-CV-1805 Before Smith, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge: After a defendant fails to appear, the court enters a default. The defendant then objects, citing the plaintiff’s failure to perfect service. Must the court set aside the entry of default and vacate the default judgment? Because the answer is yes, we vacate and remand. Three years ago, Edmundo Espinoza sued Steven Humphries in a Texas federal court to recover unpaid legal fees. Espinoza tried many times to serve the summons and complaint on Humphries at his residence in Escambia County, Florida, but Humphries evaded personal service for Case: 21-11202 Document: 00516426454 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 No. 21-11202 months. So Espinoza switched gears: The federal rules allow service under the law of the state “where service is made,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), so Espinoza tried serving Humphries by publication under Florida law. But that publication notice was defective. Had Espinoza sued Humphries in a Florida state court, he would have had to follow Florida’s venue statute, which would confine him to suing in Escambia County, where Humphries resided. See Fla. Stat. § 47.011. And to serve someone by publication in Florida, a plaintiff must publish his notice of suit “in the county where the court is located.” § 49.10(1)(a). Espinoza published his notice not in Escambia County, but in Santa Rosa County. So it did not comply with the statute. “[A]nd absent strict compliance with the statute, service is improper and any resulting proceeding or judgment is void.” Castro v. Charter Club, Inc., 114 So. 3d 1055, 1059 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013); see also Demir v. Schollmeier, 273 So. 3d 59, 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018). Noting that defect, Humphries moved to vacate his default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). But the district court declined and soon entered a default judgment. That was an abuse of discretion. Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000). A defendant cannot default if he had no duty to answer the suit—and he need not answer until “service has been perfected.” Jenkens & Gilchrist v. Groia & Co., 542 F.3d 114, 123 n.6 (5th Cir. 2008). Likewise, “a district court must set aside a default judgment as void if it determines that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant because of defective service of process.” Harper Macleod Solics. v. Keaty & Keaty, 260 F.3d 389, 393 (5th Cir. 2001) (cleaned up). So too here. Nonetheless, the district court declined to consider Humphries’s objection to improper service. That was error. Because Humphries was never properly served, he showed good cause to set aside his default and the default judgment that followed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). So we vacate them 2 Case: 21-11202 Document: 00516426454 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 No. 21-11202 both. On remand, the district court, in its discretion, may consider whether to extend the time limit for service for good cause on account of Humphries’s flagrant evasion of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Buescher v. First United Bank & Tr. (In re Buescher), 783 F.3d 302, 307 (5th Cir. 2015). The judgment is VACATED and REMANDED. 3

Primary Holding

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment declining Defendant’s motion to vacate his default judgment based on Plaintiff’s lawsuit to recover unpaid legal fees.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.