The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 RENOVA ENERGY CORP., Case No. 1:22-cv-00999-JLT-EPG
11 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARING,
REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
12 v. AS TO SERVICE
13 (ECF No. 12)
SALVADOR CUEVAS, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Renova Energy Corp.’s motion for default
17 judgment in this action alleging claims under the Lanham Act, which stem from the alleged use of
18 marks registered to Plaintiff by Defendants Salvador Cuevas; Renova Home Improvements;
19 Renova Home Energy Solutions; Inc.; Renova Energy Efficiency, Inc.; and Renova Enterprise.
20 (ECF Nos. 4, 12).
Upon review of the motion for default judgment, the Court will vacate the hearing set for
21
February 3, 2023, and will order Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief in support of the motion for
22
default judgment.
23
“Before assessing the merits of a default judgment,” a court must address certain
24
preliminary issues, such as “the adequacy of service on the defendant.” Forestiere v. Bazzi, No.
25
20-cv-03543-DMR, 2021 WL 2638052, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2021), report and
26
recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-03543-WHO, 2021 WL 2633393 (N.D. Cal. June 25,
27
2021). Here, Plaintiff’s motion asserts that Defendants were properly served, citing the proofs of
28
1 service filed in this case. (ECF No. 12, p. 8, citing ECF No. 8).
2 With each proof of service, there is a declaration from the same process service agent,
3 stating that each Defendant was served by “substituted service” at 1423 Hickory Ave., Madera,
4 California, 93637 in the following manner: “On: Tue, Aug 23 2022 at: 08:25 AM by leaving the
copies [of the complaint and summons] with or in the presence of: JOHN DOE (Hispanic, Male,
5
40s, Black Hair, Brown Eyes, 5’10”, 200 Pounds), authorized to accept served under F.R.C.P.
6
Rule 4.” (ECF No. 8, p. 1; ECF No. 8-1, p. 1; ECF No. 8-2, p. 1; ECF No. 8-3, p. 1; ECF No. 8-4,
7
p. 1). Further, each Defendant was mailed a copy of the complaint and summons on August 23,
8
2022. (ECF No. 8, p. 3; ECF No. 8-1, p. 3; ECF No. 8-2, p. 3; ECF No. 8-3, p. 3; ECF No. 8-4, p.
9
3). Although the declarations assert that the John Doe was “authorized to accept serv[ice] under
10
F.R.C.P. Rule 4,” no explanation or specific provision of Rule 4 is cited to support this assertion.
11
According to the complaint, four of the Defendants, “Renova Home Improvements,
12
Renova Home Energy Solutions, Inc., Renova Energy Efficiency, Inc., and Renova Enterprises
13
are each California entities with the same principal place of business at 4991 East Mckinley
14
Avenue, Suite 118, Fresno, California 93727.” (ECF No. 4, p. 2). One means to serve a business
15
entity is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(b), which provides that “a domestic or foreign
16 corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a
17 common name, must be served” by a plaintiff “delivering a copy of the summons and of the
18 complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by
19 appointment or by law to receive service of process and--if the agent is one authorized by statute
20 and the statute so requires--by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.” Here, there is
21 nothing to suggest that the John Doe is “an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other
22 agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process” under Rule 4(h)(1)(B).
23 However, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that service is not strictly limited to such categories of
persons but that “service can be made upon a representative so integrated with the organization
24
that he will know what to do with the papers. Generally, service is sufficient when made upon an
25
individual who stands in such a position as to render it fair, reasonable and just to imply the
26
authority on his part to receive service.” Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized
27
Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
28
1 Determining whether a person fits this description requires “a factual analysis of that person’s
2 authority within the organization.” Id. (internal citation omitted). But Plaintiff has failed to
3 provide facts showing that the John Doe, who Plaintiff served at an address different than the
4 entities’ principal place of business, was a person with sufficient authority to accept service. See
NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, No. C-04-3955 SC (JCS), 2009 WL
5
4258550, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2009) (concluding that service of subpoenas on administrative
6
assistant was not proper under Rule 4(h)(1)(B) where “there [was] no evidence that [she] [was] a
7
person with sufficient authority to accept personal service” on behalf of a gaming agency).
8
However, if Plaintiff intends to rely on this provision to establish service, Plaintiff will be given
9
leave in a supplemental brief to explain how the requirements of this provision were met.
10
Additionally, the Court notes that Rule 4(e)(1) permits service by “following state law for
11
serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the
12
district court is located or where service is made.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A). Because the
13
proofs of service reference “substituted service,” one California provision that might be
14
applicable here is California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(a), which provides for substituted
15
service on business entities as follows:
16 [B]y leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his
or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing
17
address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person
18 who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the
summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be
19 served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When
service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing
20 address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be
informed of the contents thereof.
21
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(a).
22
If Plaintiff wishes to rely on this provision, Plaintiff may explain its grounds for doing so
23
in a supplemental brief, including explaining how the John Does was “apparently in charge” of
24
the office.
25
As for the remaining Defendant, Salvador Cuevas, Rule 4(e)(2)(B) provides one method
26
of serving an individual by “leaving a copy of [the complaint and summons] at the individual’s
27
dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.”
28
1 Additionally, service on an individual may be achieved by following state law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
2 4(e)(1). One provision that might be applicable is California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b),
3 which provides for substituted service on an individual as follows:
4 [B]y leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house,
usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a
5 United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent
member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office,
6 place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal
Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the
7
contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the
8 complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the
place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.
9
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(b).
10
Here, the proof of service for Cuevas, checks a box, without offering any supporting facts,
11 stating that the John Doe was “a person of suitable age and discretion who resides [at the address
12 residence or usual place of abode].” (ECF No. 8, p. 1). At this time, the Court does not address
13 whether such is sufficient to establish service on Cuevas. However, the Court finds it noteworthy
14 that Plaintiff appears to be representing that the John Doe who purportedly lives at the residence
15 with Salvador Cuevas, is also the same person that is adequate to accept service on behalf of the
16 four other Defendants, which are all business entities. Plaintiff will be given leave to offer in its
17 supplemental brief any additional explanation or evidence as to how service was achieved on
18 Cuevas.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
19
1. The hearing set for February 3, 2023 (ECF No. 13) is vacated to be reset at a later
20
date if the Court determines that a hearing is necessary.
21
2. Plaintiff shall have until February 13, 2023, to file a supplement brief identifying
22
the specific provisions under which service was achieved for each Defendant and explaining how
23
all requirements of the applicable provisions were met. Plaintiff may also submit additional
24
evidence in support of service.
25
\\\
26
\\\
27
\\\
28
1 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the Court recommending that the
2 | motion for default judgment be denied.
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5| Dated: _ January 23, 2023 [Je hey —
6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28