Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01520/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01520-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 485
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment

---

1

Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LOUIS FLOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Plaintiff Louis Floyd filed this putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act against Defendants Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc. (“Saratoga”) and its Chief 

Executive Officer Thomas Pallone. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion 

for alternative service upon Saratoga and Pallone. ECF No. 15 (“Mot.”). For the reasons 

discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES without prejudice in part Plaintiff’s

motion for alternative service.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a resident of California. Compl. ¶ 1. Defendant Saratoga is a California 

corporation with its principal place of business in Saratoga, California. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant Pallone 

Case 3:20-cv-01520-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 7
2

Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

is a resident of California. Id. ¶ 3. Saratoga’s corporate registration with the California Secretary 

of State identifies Pallone as Saratoga’s Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial 

Officer, and agent for service of process. Mot. Ex. A. Saratoga’s corporate registration does not 

identify any other officer or any other person authorized to accept service on behalf of Saratoga. 

Id. In the same registration, the address listed for service of process on Saratoga is Pallone’s home 

address of 12619 Paseo Olivos, Saratoga, California 95070. Id. at 3, Ex. A.

Plaintiff filed the instant case on March 1, 2020. See Compl. After filing the complaint, 

during March 2020, Plaintiff’s process server made four attempts at different times of the day and 

on different days of the week to serve Pallone and Saratoga at Pallone’s home address, consistent 

with Saratoga’s corporate registration. Mot. at 3, Exs. A, B, C. Plaintiff was unable to effectuate 

service during the first three visits. Id. at 3, Exs. B, C. 

On March 17, the fourth visit, Plaintiff’s process server spoke with someone identified in 

the process server’s declaration as “John Doe,” a “co-occupant” of Pallone’s home. Id. John Doe

refused to provide his name and stated that Pallone was not available. Id. Plaintiff’s process 

server served a copy of the complaint and summons on this “John Doe.” Id. The process server 

also mailed a copy of the documents to Pallone. Id. at 3. 

Subsequently, Plaintiff made five additional attempts at service in April 2020, on different 

days of the week and at different times of the day, but was ultimately unable to serve Pallone

personally. Id. at 4, Exs. B, C. The process server noted on several occasions that there were cars 

in the driveway and voices inside the house. Id. Exs. B, C. 

On May 20, 2020, following Plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempts to serve Saratoga and 

Pallone, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. See Mot.

II. DISCUSSION

In the instant motion, Plaintiff moves the Court to authorize alternative service on Saratoga 

via the California Secretary of State under California Corporations Code section 1702(a). Id. at 4. 

Plaintiff further moves the Court to authorize service on Pallone by certified mail. Id. at 5–6. The 

Case 3:20-cv-01520-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 7
3

Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court addresses Plaintiff’s two requests in turn.

A. Service on Saratoga via the California Secretary of State

Service of a complaint in federal court is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 

Specifically, Rule 4(h)(1)(A) provides that service on domestic corporations may be effectuated 

“in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual.” Rule 4(e)(1) permits service 

“following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction 

in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.”

The California Code of Civil Procedure provides for service on a corporation to an agent 

designated for the service of process or to an officer of the company. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 

§ 416.10(a), (b). If a corporation’s agent to receive service “cannot with reasonable diligence be 

found at the address designated for personally delivering the process,” a “court may make an order 

that the service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State . . .

one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order 

authorizing such service.” Cal. Corp. Code § 1702(a); see, e.g., FTC v. Discountmetalbrokers, 

Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02112-ODW, 2016 WL 3751618, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2016) (finding 

service under section 1702(a) appropriate after the FTC “exhausted all methods of service short of 

service on the Secretary of State”).

For a court to issue such an order, it must be “shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the 

court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence” on 

the corporation’s agent according to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.10(a), 

415.20(a), or 415.30(a) or upon the corporation according to sections 416.10(a)–(c) and 416.20(a). 

Cal. Corp. Code § 1702(a). See, e.g., Freshko Produce Servs., Inc. v. ILA Prods., Inc., No. 1:19-

cv-00017-DAD-BAM, 2020 WL 2039049 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2020) (assessing whether 

plaintiff’s declarations show that service was not possible with reasonable diligence by each of the 

listed methods); Gambord v. Westside Gas, Inc., No. 17-cv-00262-BLF, 2017 WL 2774408, at 

*2–4 (N.D. Cal. June 26 2017) (same); Gofron v. Picsel Techs., Inc., No. 9-04041-CW, 2010 WL 

Case 3:20-cv-01520-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 7
4

Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

4807096, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) (same). Accordingly, the Court will consider in turn

whether Plaintiff has “shown by affidavit” that Saratoga “cannot be served with reasonable 

diligence” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.10(a), 415.20(a), 

415.30(a), 416.10(a), and 416.10(b). See Cal. Corp. Code § 1702(a). Sections 416.10(c) and 

416.20(a) do not apply because Saratoga is not a bank, and Plaintiff does not allege that Saratoga 

has forfeited its charter or dissolved. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 416.10(c), 416.20(a). Thus, the 

Court need not reach those two sections.

First, section 415.10(a) allows service by “personal delivery . . . to the person to be 

served.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.10(a). The nine attempts at service that Plaintiff has shown 

in the affidavit are sufficient to show that process cannot be accomplished with reasonable 

diligence by personal delivery to Pallone, Saratoga’s designated agent. Mot. at 3–4, Exs. A, B. 

See Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Grp., Inc., 6 Cal. App. 4th 1387, 1392 (1992) (finding three attempts 

at delivery to defendant’s residence sufficient to allow substitute service).

Second, section 415.20(a) allows substitute service by leaving a copy of the complaint and 

summons at the office or home address of the person to be served “with the person who is 

apparently in charge thereof” and subsequently mailing the documents to the person to be served 

at the same address where the documents were left. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a). Plaintiff 

attempted service at Pallone’s home and office address, which are the same. Mot. at 3, Ex. B. 

Plaintiff has shown through affidavit an effort to serve Pallone by way of John Doe, a person that 

Plaintiff’s process server identified as Pallone’s “co-occupant” because John Doe appeared to

reside at Pallone’s residence. Id. However, John Doe refused to identify himself, and thus 

Plaintiff was unable to ascertain whether John Doe was “apparently in charge,” as required for 

substitute service to be effective under Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a). Mot. at 3, Ex. B; see, 

e.g., Dytch v. Bermudez, No. 17-cv-02714-EMC, 2018 WL 2230945, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 

2018) (finding substitute service not effective when the recipient was not shown to be “apparently 

in charge”). The Court is satisfied that service under section 415.20(a) could not be accomplished 

Case 3:20-cv-01520-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 7
5

Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

through reasonable diligence in light of Pallone’s co-occupant’s refusal to cooperate with the 

process server and identify himself.

Third, section 415.30(a) allows service by mail with a return envelope, postage prepaid. 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30(a). Service is complete by this method when “a written 

acknowledgement of receipt of summons is executed, if such acknowledgement thereafter is 

returned to the sender.” Id. § 415.30(c). Plaintiff’s motion states that the documents were mailed 

to Pallone, apparently with no reply because Plaintiff is seeking service by alternative means.

Mot. at 3. However, California Corporations Code section 1702(a) requires that Plaintiff 

document “by affidavit” his attempts to effectuate service. Plaintiff’s purported attempt at service 

by mail is not mentioned in any of the process server’s declarations, nor is it substantiated in any 

other affidavit filed with Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not 

adequately established by affidavit his attempts to substantiate service by mail pursuant to section 

415.30(a).

Fourth, section 416.10(a) allows service on a corporation through its agent. Cal. Code Civ. 

Proc. 416(a). As described above, Plaintiff’s affidavit shows nine unsuccessful attempts to serve 

Pallone, Saratoga’s agent. Mot. at 3–4, Exs. A, B. Thus, Plaintiff’s affidavit has shown that 

process cannot be served on Saratoga by this method of service with reasonable diligence.

Fifth, section 416.10(b) allows service to the “president, chief executive officer, or other 

head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant 

treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the 

corporation to receive service of process.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10(b). Plaintiff’s affidavit 

shows attempts only to serve Pallone. Mot. at 3–4, Ex. B. Saratoga’s corporate registration 

identifies Pallone as Saratoga’s “Chief Executive Officer,” “Secretary,” “Chief Financial Officer,” 

and “Agent for Service of Process.” Id. Saratoga’s corporate registration identifies no other 

officer, general manager or person authorized to receive service of process for Saratoga. Id. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s nine attempts to serve Pallone show that process cannot be served on Saratoga by 

Case 3:20-cv-01520-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 7
6

Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

this method of service with reasonable diligence. See, e.g., Gambord, 2017 WL 2774408, at *3

(finding section 416.10 satisfied when plaintiff was unable to serve the lone identified officer).

In sum, although the affidavits Plaintiff filed show substantial efforts to serve Saratoga, 

Plaintiff has not established by affidavit his attempts to effectuate service via mail to Pallone at his 

address according to section 415.30(a). Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s request to serve Saratoga via the California Secretary of State. Plaintiff may cure the 

deficiency by refiling a motion that includes an affidavit that shows that service by mail under 

section 415.30 is not possible with reasonable diligence.

B. Service on Pallone by Certified Mail

As to individual defendants, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) allows for service on

an individual “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general 

jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 413.30 allows a court to “direct that summons 

be served in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be 

served.” “To satisfy constitutional norms of due process, the alternative method of service must 

be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the interested parties of the 

action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, 

Inc., No. 11-3619-YGR, 2012 WL 1038752, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (quoting Rio Props., 

Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Courts within this district have authorized service upon individuals via certified mail when 

personal service was unsuccessful. For example, a court permitted service by certified mail under 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 413.30 when the plaintiff alleged five unsuccessful 

attempts at addresses found in corporate filings and six attempts at a personal address, a gated 

home with an intercom. Lagree Techs., Inc., v. Spartacus 20th L.P., No. 17-cv-00795-JST, 2017 

WL 1374598, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017). The Court found that the plaintiff had adequately 

alleged the defendant “lived in the gated property and evaded process servers.” Id. at *3. 

Case 3:20-cv-01520-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 7
7

Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Therefore, the Court determined that certified mail was a “reasonable alternative likely to provide 

[defendants] with actual notice.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff’s process server has made nine unsuccessful attempts to serve Pallone over 

a two-month period, at different times of the day and on different days of the week. Mot. at 3–4,

Ex. C. The process server noted on several occasions that there were cars in the driveway and 

voices inside the house. Id. Ex. C. Additionally, on March 17, 2020, the process server served a 

copy of the complaint and summons on “John Doe,” who refused to identify himself and who

stated that Pallone was “not available,” at Pallone’s residence. Id. at 3, Ex. C. 

On this basis, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Pallone lives in the property and has 

avoided service. Therefore, certified mail appears “reasonably calculated to give actual notice to 

the party to be served.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 413.30; see Lagree Techs., Inc., 2017 WL 

1374598, at *1.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to serve 

process on Saratoga via the California Secretary of State. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion 

to serve Pallone by certified mail. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2020

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-01520-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 7