Parker v. Computershare Incorporated et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Theadra Parker,
Plaintiff,
v.
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02221-PHX-CDB
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc.
39).1 The Motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 39; 46). For the reasons set forth, the Court
denies Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. 39).
1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have consented to
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant to
General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part:
When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been
assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be
appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent
to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and
Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court
Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on
my behalf:
Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M.
McNamee
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 47 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, has consented to the exercise
of magistrate judge jurisdiction over this matter, which involves claims of employment
discrimination. (Doc. 7). On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming
Computershare Inc., Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Newrez LLC, and Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing, as defendants. (Doc. 1). On August 4, 2025, prior to any defendant
being served, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming “Computershare/Specialized
Loan Servicing,” “Newrez LLC/Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing,” and various individuals,
as defendants. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff did not serve either the Complaint nor the Amended
Complaint on any defendant.
Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on October 3, 2025.
(Doc. 13). The defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint are “Computershare
Incorporated/Specialized Loan Servicing” and “Newrez LLC/Shellpoint Mortgage.” (Id.).
Counsel for Defendant “Newrez/Shellpoint Mortgage” (“Newrez”) accepted service on
October 6, 2025. (ECF No. 15). Newrez agreed to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this
matter. (Doc. 22).
Service on Defendant “Computershare Incorporated/Specialized Loan Servicing”
was required no later than September 24, 2025. In an order issued November 7, 2025,
Plaintiff was allowed until November 17, 2025, to show cause why Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Computershare Incorporated/Specialized Loan Servicing should not be
dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve this defendant within the time specified by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 24).
On November 14, 2025, Defendant Newrez answered the Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 25) and filed its corporate disclosure statement in compliance with Rule
7.1(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating “Newrez LLC d/b/a
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Newrez Holdings LLC.”
(Doc. 26 at 4). On November 17, 2025, in a response to the Order to Show Cause at Doc.
27, Plaintiff contends that she has had difficulty serving Defendant
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 47 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Computershare/Specialized Loan Servicing. (Doc. 27).
In an order entered November 19, 2025, the Court ordered Defendant Newrez to
review Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause and file a notice taking a specific
legal position as to the corporate status or separate corporate status of Computershare
Incorporated and Specialized Loan Servicing, i.e., whether both or either of these entities
have been subsumed by Defendant Newrez such that any judgment against
Computershare Incorporated or any judgment against Specialized Loan Servicing would
be, in effect, a judgment against Newrez, or a parent or holding company of Newrez.
Defendant was also required to state whether effective service on Defendant Newrez, or
its parent company Rithm Capital Corporation, would constitute effective service on
Computershare Incorporated (“Computershare” and/or Specialized Loan Servicing. (Doc.
28). Defendants take the position that they are separate legal entities. (Doc. 29).
On January 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
with this Court recommending that “Computershare Incorporated” be dismissed as a
defendant in this matter, and that all of Plaintiff’s claims as only against “Computershare
Incorporated” as stated in the operative Second Amended Complaint be dismissed
without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to serve this defendant in compliance with Rule 4
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s order requiring service of a
summons and the Second Amended Complaint on Computershare Incorporated no later
than December 22, 2025. (Doc. 32 at 5-6). No objections were filed. On January 21,
2026, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 35).
On February 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of this
Court’s Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc.
39). On February 27, 2026, Defendants filed a response. (Doc. 46).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
It is within the Court’s discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v.
Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). However, motions for reconsideration are
disfavored and should be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 47 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier
with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g); see Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229
F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); see also 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656,
665 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly
unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling
law.”). Disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration nor should
reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis.
See Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir.
1988).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that she acted diligently and has now cured all service defects
and requests relief under Fed R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 60(b). (Doc. 39 at 1-2). Plaintiff further
contends that she served Computershare Incorporated via USPS certified mail on
December 22, 2025 with the Second Amended Complaint and Forms AO-398 and AO-
399, filed Form AO-440 and the summons on January 15, 2026, re-served Computershare
with the Complaint, summons, and waiver forms on January 15, 2026, and submitted a
corrected AO-440 form on February 12, 2016. (Id.)
In response, Defendants contend that this Court was correct when it adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation because Plaintiff failed to meet the
service deadlines. (Doc. 46 at 3). Further, Defendants take no position on Plaintiff’s
request for relief in her Motion for reconsideration because Defendant Newrez is a
separate entity and is unable to respond to pleadings on behalf of Computershare. (Id.)
Service must be accomplished by an adult who is not a party to the case. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Under Federal Rule 4(h)(1)(B), service of process can be effected on a
corporation through delivery of the summons and complaint to “an officer, a managing or
general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service
of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). “When serving a corporation, Rule 4(h) requires
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 47 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
personal service on someone at the corporation, and service by mail to a general
corporate address is not sufficient.” Gray v. Saks Fifth Ave. LLC, No. CV-20-01987-
PHX-JJT, 2021 WL 5112055, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 3, 2021) (citations omitted).
Alternatively, the plaintiff may serve a corporate defendant in the manner prescribed for
serving individuals, which permits service by following state law of the state where the
district court is located or where service is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A); 4(e)(1).
Here, the district court is located in Arizona.
Under Arizona law, service on a corporation outside of Arizona may be
accomplished as follows:
If a domestic or foreign corporation, partnership, or other unincorporated
association has the legal capacity to be sued and has not waived service under
Rule 4.1(c), it may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and the
pleading being served to a partner, an officer, a managing or general agent, or any
other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process
and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires—by also
mailing a copy of each to the defendant.
Ariz. R. Civ. Pro. 4.2. Further, a plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse her from
compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4. Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v.
Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987).
Because Defendant Computershare Incorporated is a corporation located within
the United States, Plaintiff was required to serve Defendant Computershare pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) or 4(e), as described above. Here, Plaintiff allegedly
has attempted to serve Defendant Computershare by mailing a copy of the summons and
complaint via USPS certified mail to the company’s headquarters in Canton,
Massachusetts. (Doc. 39). Plaintiff has not provided any documentation supporting that
individual who received the certified mail is an agent authorized by appointment or by
law to receive service on behalf of Defendant Computershare. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate the validity of her service of process and the Court, therefore,
denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 39); see LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“The
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 47 Filed 03/10/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of
manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been
brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 39).
Dated this 10th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 47 Filed 03/10/26 Page 6 of 6