# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · April 29, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374955

## Case

- **Full name:** Kaplan v. Bessent
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** April 29, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374955

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Sees 2:26-cv-00541-MCS RAO Rg April 29,2026
Title Kaplan v. Bessent

Present: The Honorable Mark C. Scarsi, United States District Judge

Stephen Montes Kerr —__——NotReported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Charles Kaplan, a self-represented litigant, brings this action for
trespass and case against federal and state tax authorities. (See generally FAC, ECF
No. 28.) The sole remaining defendants are Scott Bessent, Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), and Mr. Larochelle, an IRS agent. (See Order 4,
ECF No. 52 (dismissing claims against other defendants).) Both were named as
parties in the original complaint, which was filed over 90 days ago. (Compl. § 7-8,
ECF No. 1.) The Court noted in a prior order “that service of officers or employees
of the United States is governed by particular service rules, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(1), and
that a defendant generally must be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
id. R. 4(m).” (Order 4.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that, if service of the summons
and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint,
courts have authority to dismiss an action without prejudice after giving notice to
the plaintiff. See Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (requiring
notice before dismissal). If a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve the
complaint within that period, the Court must extend the time for accomplishing
service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Page 1 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO

Here, Plaintiff’s proofs of service demonstrate ineffective service. Plaintiff’s
server purportedly attempted to serve Messrs. Bessent and Larochelle by substituted
service, but the server only mailed the summons, complaint, and other case-initiating
documents to the United States Attorney for the Central District of California and
the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., with either a return receipt requested or
an acknowledgment of receipt form. (Bessent Proof of Service 1–3, ECF No. 17;
Larochelle Proof of Service 1–3, ECF No. 20.) The proofs of service use POS-010
forms designed to prove service compliant with California law. (See id.) In federal
court, service of an officer or employee of the United States cannot be completed
through substituted service under California law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2) (governing
service of officers or employees of the United States sued in an official capacity);1
cf. id. R. 4(e) (authorizing service of individuals “following state law” “[u]nless
federal law provides otherwise”). The proofs of service do not indicate the server
mailed the summons and complaint to either the United States Attorney or the
Attorney General by registered or certified mail, as Rule 4(i)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)
require. (See Bessent Proof of Service 1–2; Larochelle Proof of Service 1–2.) Nor
do they demonstrate the server also sent a copy of the summons and complaint to
Messrs. Bessent and Larochelle, as Rule 4(i)(2) requires. (See id.)

Good cause to extend the deadline to complete service is apparently lacking,
as the Court warned Plaintiff before the deadline of the special rules pertaining to
service of officers or employees of the United States. (Order 4.) Assuming the server
did not mail the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney or the
Attorney General by registered or certified mail, the Court is not obliged to extend
the service period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(4)(A).

The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the claims against the remaining
defendants should not be dismissed for failure to timely complete service. Plaintiff
shall file a written response within 14 days of entry of this Order. Failure to file a
timely and satisfactory response will result in dismissal without further warning.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 The Court infers that Plaintiff intended to sue all individual defendants in their
official capacities, as Plaintiff identified Messrs. Bessent and Larochelle in his
pleading by their positions at the IRS, (FAC ¶¶ 9–10 (identifying Messrs. Bessent
and Larochelle by their positions at the IRS)), and conceded at the hearing on the
California Franchise Tax Board’s motion to dismiss that he sued a state employee in
her official capacity.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374955. Public record. Not legal advice.