Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00765/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00765-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ESCOBEDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SJZ SHIELDS, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00765---SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE SERVICE 

OF PROCESS

OCTOBER 2, 2016 DEADLINE

Plaintiff filed this action on May 19, 2015 against Defendant SJZ Shields, LLC. alleging 

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California Unruh Act, and California Business 

and Professions Code. On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff returned a proof of service of summons. 

Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default which was entered on July 13, 2015. On September 

8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment.

In deciding whether to grant the motion for default judgment, the Court first determines 

whether the service of process in this action complied with the requirements of federal and, 

where relevant, state law. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a 

corporation must be served

(1) in a judicial district of the United States:

(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or

(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00765-GEB-SAB Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 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

2

the statute so requires--by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). 

Rule 4(e) states that an individual may be served by following state law for service of the 

summons in the state where the court is located or by any of the following:

(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual 

personally;

(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode 

with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or

(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to 

receive service of process.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). 

California law provides for service of process on a corporation by serving the person 

designated as the agent for service of process or certain enumerated officers or other authorized 

agents of the corporation, or where the serving party cannot with reasonable diligence serve an 

individual in another category, the Secretary of State can be served as provided by Corporations 

Code Section 1702. Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 416.10(a)(b); Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc., 67 

Cal.App.4th 295, 303 (1998). Under California law substituted service can be effected by 

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 address, 

other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person 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 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 address, it 

shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the 

contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 

10th day after the mailing. 

Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 415.20(a). 

In this instance, the proof of service indicates that Plaintiff served the agent for service at 

4201 E. Shields Avenue, Fresno, California 93726. (ECF No. 4.) However, according to the 

Secretary of State‟s website, Mr. Zarbarsky‟s address is 2439 Rall Avenue, Clovis, California 

93611. See Business Entity Detail located at http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/, enter entity name of SJZ 

Shields (last visited 9/16/15). The address at which Plaintiff served Mr. Zarbarsky does not 

appear to be his business address, dwelling or usual place of abode. Further, “ „[o]rdinarily, ... 

two or three attempts at personal service at a proper place should fully satisfy the requirement of 

Case 1:15-cv-00765-GEB-SAB Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 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

3

reasonable diligence and allow substituted service to be made.‟ ” Bonita Packing Co. v. 

O'Sullivan, 165 F.R.D. 610, 613 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Bein v. Brechtel–Jochim Group, Inc., 

6 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1390, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 351, 352 (1992) (citing Espindola v. Nunez, 199 

Cal.App.3d 1389, 1392, 245 Cal.Rptr. 596 (1988)). Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff 

made any attempt at personally serving Mr. Zarbarsky prior to effecting substitute service. 

“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is 

to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 

interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 

objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). In this 

action, Plaintiff is seeking default judgment against a party who has not appeared in the action. 

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff shall be required to brief the issue of why service in this 

action was sufficient to comply with the notice requirements of due process and the federal 

and/or state rules governing service. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before October 2, 2015, Plaintiff 

shall file supplemental briefing addressing why service of the complaint in this instance 

comports with the requirements of due process and the federal or state rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00765-GEB-SAB Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 3