Greene v. GSK PLC, No. 3:25-cv-05357-TMC (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Majority
United States (J.) (unanimous Court)
DANA SERINE GREENE, Plaintiff, v. GSK PLC (f/k/a..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 238900Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, W.D. Washington.DANA SERINE GREENE, Plaintiff,v.GSK PLC (f/k/a GlaxoSmithKline) Defendant.Case No. 3:25-cv-05357-TMC|01/29/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Attorneys and Law FirmsDana Serine Greene, Edgewood, WA, Pro Se.United States District JudgeORDER DENYING REQUESTFOR COURT-ASSISTED SERVICEI. INTRODUCTION*1 Plaintiff Dana Serine Greene brings this case againstGSK PLC (“GSK”) for complications she suffered fromtaking Paxil, a medication made by GSK. Dkt. 14. Ms. Greenehas been attempting to serve GSK at its headquarters inthe United Kingdom for several months to no avail. Dkts.12, 16. She brings the present “motion to compel clerk toexecute USM-74 and return completed Hague service packetto Plaintiff,” Dkt. 16, which this Court construes as a motionrequesting the Court's assistance with service pursuant toFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). For the reasonsdiscussed below, the Court DENIES Ms. Greene's motion.II. BACKGROUNDMs. Greene brought this case on April 25, 2025, alleging thatshe was treated with GSK's Paxil during her childhood andshe suffered physical and mental complications from the drug,including “obstructive sleep apnea and bone abnormalitiesrequiring surgical correction.” Dkt. 1 at 7. She amended hercomplaint on May 14, 2025, and then again on November 3,2025. Dkts. 5, 14.On September 18, 2025, Ms. Greene filed a motion forcourt-directed service with a declaration and several exhibitsdemonstrating her attempts to serve GSK—incorporated inthe United Kingdom—pursuant to Rule 4(f)(1) and theHague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial andExtrajudicial Documents (the “Hague Service Convention”).Dkt. 12.1 These exhibits indicated Ms. Greene had receivedcontradictory communications from the Foreign ProcessSection of the Royal Courts of Justice (the “UK CentralAuthority”) as to whether her service packet was correctlycompleted and would be served on GSK. Id. at 5–8.Specifically, Ms. Greene prepared two service packets. Id.at 1. The first packet, received by the UK Central Authorityon July 12, 2025, listed Ms. Greene as the applicant andGSK as the addressee. Id. at 11–17. On July 16, 2025,the UK Central Authority told Ms. Greene that she hadcompleted the first packet incorrectly. Id. at 4. The UK CentralAuthority told Ms. Greene “we require you to provide thetransmitting agencies details under the section ‘Identity andaddress of the applicant’ which would be yourself insteadof the applicant.” Id. Perhaps confused by this instruction,Ms. Greene submitted a second packet, received by the UKCentral Authority on August 13, 2025, listing Ms. Greene asboth the applicant and the addressee. Id. at 20–26.*2 With respect to the first packet, Ms. Greene receivedan email from the UK Central Authority on August 1, 2025,stating the following:I am pleased to inform you that,your documents were received andprocessed, they have been sent tothe Bailiff Section at Clerkenwell &Shoreditch CC to be served on [GSK].The Bailiff has until 11 August 2025 toserve the documents.Id. at 8. However, according to Ms. Greene, she received“no certificate of service and no return of non-service.” Id.at 1. Then, on August 28, 2025, Ms. Greene received a letterrejecting the second service packet because she had listedherself as the addressee. Id. at 6. The letter asked Ms. Greene
DANA SERINE GREENE, Plaintiff, v. GSK PLC (f/k/a..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2to instead list the defendant of the case as the addressee, asshe had done in the first packet. Id.Given the UK Central Authority's conflicting instructions andambiguity as to whether the first packet was served, Ms.Greene asked the Court to direct “that service of process on[GSK] be completed forthwith using the corrected packetsalready provided, without further delay or contradiction.” Id.at 2. The Court denied Ms. Greene's request on September 19,2025. Dkt. 13. On November 18, 2025, the Court reset casedeadlines to allow Ms. Greene more time to properly servethe complaint.Ms. Greene then sent several emails directly to the Clerk'sOffice, asking the Clerk of Court to sign and forward theservice packet to the UK Central Authority on her behalf. TheClerk's Office declined to do so, and Ms. Greene submittedthe present motion on November 24, 2025. Dkt. 16.III. DISCUSSIONRule 4(c)(3) authorizes federal courts to order that serviceof process be made “by a United States marshal or deputymarshal or by a person specially appointed by the court.”Such orders are mandatory only where a plaintiff has beenauthorized to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 18U.S.C. § 1915 or is a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916. Id.“In all other instances, the federal court ‘may’ issue such anorder.” Hollywood v. Carrows California Fam. Restaurants,No. CV 18-2098-JGB (GJS), 2018 WL 7461690, at *1(C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018). “Plaintiffs seeking court-orderedservice should set forth what steps they have already takento accomplish service and explain why a court order isnecessary.” Johnson v. Nordstrom, No. 2:23-CV-01813-LK,2024 WL 2818808, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 3, 2024), appealdismissed sub nom. Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 24-3838,2024 WL 5237524 (9th Cir. July 19, 2024).Ms. Greene paid the full filing fee in this case and is notproceeding IFP. Dkt. 1-1. Nevertheless, she asks the Court toassist with service by ordering the Clerk of Court to sign andreturn a USM-94 form so she can submit it to the UK CentralAuthority. Dkt. 16 at 1–2.USM-94 is “[t]he form used in the United States forrequesting service under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.”Perry v. Burgos Transp., No. 5:24-CV-01324-DMG-AJR,2024 WL 5679164, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2024) (citingBurda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 296 (2d Cir.2005)).2 Article 3 of the Hague Service Convention statesthe following:The authority or judicial officercompetent under the law of the Statein which the documents originate shallforward to the Central Authority of theState addressed a request conformingto the model annexed to the presentConvention, without any requirementof legalisation or other equivalentformality. The document to be servedor a copy thereof shall be annexedto the request. The request and thedocument shall both be furnished induplicate.*320 U.S.T. 361 (“Article 3”).Ms. Greene asserts that the UK Central Authority “rejectedtwo previous attempts at service abroad for lack of [a]forwarding authority signature” in compliance with Article 3.Dkt. 16 at 2. According to Ms. Greene, the Clerk of Courtis a competent forwarding authority under Article 3, and theCourt should therefore compel the Clerk to sign and forwardMs. Greene's USM-94. Id. at 2–3.Article 3 “leaves it to the requesting State to determinewho qualifies as competent authority or judicial officer[.]”Micula v. Gov't of Romania, No. 17-CV-02332 (APM), 2018WL 10196624, at *4 (D.D.C. May 22, 2018) (emphasisomitted) (citing Hague Conference on Private InternationalLaw, Practical Handbook on the Operation of the HagueConvention 43 (4th ed. 2016)); see Marschhauser v. TravelersIndem. Co., 145 F.R.D. 605, 608 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (Article3 “expressly states that the authority or judicial officer mustbe competent in the state in which the documents originate,not the recipient state.”). When applying Article 3, UnitedStates courts look to Rule 4(c)(2) to determine who iscompetent to serve as the forwarding authority. Micula, 2018WL 10196624, at *4 (citing Charleston Aluminum, LLC v.Ulbrinox S. De R.L. de S.V., No. CIV.A. 3:12-2389-MBS,2013 WL 152895, at *1 (D.S.C. Jan. 15, 2013)). Rule 4(c)(2)allows any person who is at least 18 years old and not a partyto the case to serve a summons and complaint.
DANA SERINE GREENE, Plaintiff, v. GSK PLC (f/k/a..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3In other words, to comply with Article 3, the USM-94 sent tothe UK Central Authority need only be signed and forwardedby a person who is not a party and is over 18. Ms. Greene iscorrect that the Clerk of Court—like countless other persons—could perform this function. But because “[i]t appears thatservice by the Hague Convention can be accomplished withthe help of a process server and without judicial assistance,”the Court is not inclined to order the Clerk to assist. Perry,2024 WL 5679164, at *2.In support of her motion, Ms. Greene cites a memorandum bythe Department of Justice's (“DOJ”) Office of InternationalJudicial Assistance (“OIJA”)—the United States’ ownCentral Authority. Dkt. 16 at 3 (citing DOJ OIJA, Instructionson Serving under the Hague Convention,https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2014/08/08/NEW%20Instructions%20on%20Serving%20under%20the%20Hague%20Convention.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2026)).3 Thememorandum instructs plaintiffs to:Enter the name and address of theapplicant (or requesting authority)who will be forwarding the requestto the foreign Central Authority forexecution. As noted above, typicallyunder United States law, the applicantwill be the attorney for the partymaking the service. Other competentrequesting authorities under UnitedStates law include persons authorizedto serve a summons and complaintunder the rules of procedure of thestate or federal court where the caseis pending. Please note that under theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure andmost state court rules a pro se partyis not permitted to serve a summonsand complaint. Accordingly, a pro separty is NOT a competent requestingauthority for purposes of a requestfor service under the Hague ServiceConvention. In such cases, the clerkof the court or other appropriateofficial who is authorized to servethe complaint domestically shouldprepare and submit the request forservice.*4 DOJ OIJA, Instructions on Serving under the HagueConvention at 2 (emphasis added). Although Ms. Greenequotes the instructions to argue that “the clerk ofcourt...should prepare and submit the request for service,”Dkt. 16 at 3, the full text is consistent with this Court'sposition that anyone authorized to serve under Rule 4(c)(2)is a competent forwarding authority under the Hague ServiceConvention.Lastly, Ms. Greene cites several authorities which do notsupport her proposition or do not contain the text whichshe quotes. Id. at 3 (quoting Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004); Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Org. of thePetroleum Exporting Countries, 766 F.3d 74, 83 (D.C. Cir.2014); Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.net, 302 F.3d248, 256 (4th Cir. 2002); Gurung v. Malhotra, 279 F.R.D.215, 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); In re LLS Am., LLC, No. 09-06194-PCW11, 2011 WL 4005447, at *2 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. Sept. 8,2011)). These false citations bear “the emblems of the use ofa generative artificial intelligence tool,” which can “fabricateor ‘hallucinate’ legal precedent.” Romero v. Goldman SachsBank USA, No. 1:25-CV-2857-GHW, 2025 WL 1916119, at*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2025).The Court has no formal rule against the use of generativeartificial intelligence to write pleadings and briefs. To theextent she uses these tools, the Court reminds Ms. Greene thatshe remains bound by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,which requires that by presenting a motion or other writtenpaper to the Court, a party certifies that its “legal contentionsare warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argumentfor extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or forestablishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). In thefuture, Ms. Greene may be sanctioned for providing authorityto the Court that does not actually exist. See Saxena v.Martinez-Hernandez, No. 2:22-cv-02126-CDS-BNW, 2025WL 1194003, at *2 n.5 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2025) (collectingcases and warning pro se litigants that generative artificialintelligence can create hallucinated case citations and usingthese citations may lead to court-imposed sanctions).The Court recognizes that international service can bedifficult and confusing. But because Ms. Greene appearsto have not yet submitted a service packet which complieswith Article 3, the Court declines to order the Clerk to sign
DANA SERINE GREENE, Plaintiff, v. GSK PLC (f/k/a..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4her USM-94 form. Ms. Greene may obtain the assistance ofanyone who is over 18 and not a party in this case to signand submit the form (along with the complaint and summons)to the UK Central Authority. If she does so, but the UKCentral Authority rejects her service packet for lacking thesignature of a competent forwarding authority, she may renewher motion for the Court's assistance.The Court will also extend the time for service for 90additional days—to April 29, 2026. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).The initial case scheduling deadlines will also be reset for anadditional 90 days to allow time for Ms. Greene to completeservice.IV. CONCLUSIONThe Court DENIES Ms. Greene's motion for Court-assistedservice pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.Dkt. 16. The time for service is extended to April 29, 2026.The Clerk is respectfully requested to extend the initial casescheduling deadlines for an additional 90 days.*5 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of thisOrder to all counsel of record and to any party appearing prose at said party's last known address.Dated this 29th day of January, 2026.aTiffany M. Cartwright United States District JudgeAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 238900Footnotes1The Hague Service Convention is an international treaty. See generally the Hague Service Convention,opened for signatureNov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, TIAS No. 6638. The United Kingdom and the United Stateshave signed the Hague Service Convention. See Status Table, HCCH, https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=17 (last updated March 21, 2024) (listing parties to the convention). “TheHague Convention requires signatory countries to establish a Central Authority to receive requests for serviceof documents from other countries and to serve those documents by methods compatible with the internallaws of the receiving state.”Rubie's Costume Co. v. Yiwu Hua Hao Toys Co., Ltd., No. 2:18-cv-01530, 2019WL 6310564, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 25, 2019) (citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486U.S. 694, 698–99 (1988)).2See U.S. Marshal's Service, USM-94: Request for Service Abroad of Judicial or ExtrajudicialDocuments, https://www.usmarshals.gov/resources/forms/usm-94-request-service-abroad-of- judicial-or-extrajudicial-documents (last visited January 29, 2026). The form contains the same fields as the two Ms.Greene previously submitted to the UK Central Authority. Dkt. 12 at 11– 17, 20–26.3OIJA released an updated memorandum after Ms. Greene filed the present motion but did not make changesto any portions cited in the motion. DOJ OIJA, Guidance on Service Abroad in U.S. Litigation (Dec. 16, 2025),https://www.justice.gov/civil/page/file/1064896/dl?inline.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access