Opinion

The Board of Trustees v. Empire Engineering & Construction, Inc.

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Feb 7, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.0%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04824-DMR

11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART EX PARTE

12 v. APPLICATION TO SERVE

DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION AND

13 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TO ENLARGE TIME TO SERVE

CONSTRUCTION, INC., DEFENDANT

14

Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 45

15

16 Plaintiffs Board of Trustees for the Cement Masons Health & Welfare Trust Fund for

17 Northern California et al. move for service by publication of the summons and complaint in this

18 lawsuit against Defendant Empire Engineering & Construction and to extend the service deadline

19 by 60 days. [Docket No. 45.]

20 Plaintiffs’ motion and accompanying declaration are deficient in several respects. First,

21 the motion does not address any case law on service by publication. California law allows for

22 service of a summons by publication only “if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the

23 court . . . that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner”

24 of service and “[a] cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made or he

25 or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(a)(1).

26 “Because of due process concerns, service by publication must be allowed ‘only as a last resort.’”

27 Duarte v. Freeland, No. 05-cv-2780-EMC, 2008 WL 683427, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2008)

1 requirement of section 415.50 “denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry

2 conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney.” Watts, 10 Cal. 4th at 749 n.5

3 (citation omitted); see Kott v. Super. Ct., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1126, 1137-38 (1996). “Before

4 allowing a plaintiff to resort to service by publication, the courts necessarily require him to show

5 exhaustive attempts to locate the defendant, for it is generally recognized that service by

6 publication rarely results in actual notice.” Watts, 10 Cal. 4th at 749 n.5. “If a defendant’s

7 address is ascertainable, a method of service superior to publication must be employed,” such as

8 mail or substitute service. Id. at 749 n.5; see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10-.40. Plaintiffs’ papers

9 fail to demonstrate their reasonable diligence and exhaustive attempts at service to justify the use

10 of this “last resort” method. Any renewed motion must include legal citations and proper

11 argument.

12 Additionally, counsel’s declaration in support of the motion does not provide any

13 independent evidentiary support for the existence of a cause of action against Defendant. See Cal.

14 Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(a)(1); Hernandez v. Srija, Inc., No. 19-1813-LB, 2019 WL 4417589, at

15 *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2019); Cummings v. Brantley Hale, No. 15-cv-4723-JCS, 2016 WL

16 4762208, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2016)). “Under California law, service by publication is

17 neither appropriate nor valid without such an affidavit.” Cummings, 2016 WL 4762208, at *3.

18 Plaintiffs also do not name the newspaper where they request the summons to be published and

19 explain why that newspaper would give Defendant actual notice of this lawsuit. Cal. Civ. Proc.

20 Code § 415.50(b)-(c); see Cal. Gov’t Code § 6064.1

21 Accordingly, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The request to serve by

22 publication is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs should be prepared to address all of the

23 deficiencies explained here if they wish to serve the summons and complaint via publication.

24 Plaintiffs shall file a renewed motion or a status report by March 7, 2024. The deadline to serve

25

26

1 The court notes that it previously denied without prejudice a motion for service by publication

for many of the same reasons in Board of Trustees for Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. Fund for N.

27

California v. P & J Util. Co., No. 21-CV-01075-DMR, 2022 WL 1529408, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal.

KES DISTRIGS

EY £0

1 Defendant is extended to March 7, 2024. ‘D or

Ry

&y DY

2 IT IS SO ORDERED. >lFris SO ORDERE

3 || Dated: February 7, 2024 <

| eo

5 rePMagistrate Judge Ay

os Av)

6 a

Ly oS

7 DISTRICL-

8

9

10

11

e 12

13

©

15

16

€

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.