Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04064/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04064-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH P. MELEHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.5:16-cv-04064-HRL 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR SERVICE 

BY PUBLICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Plaintiff Scott Johnson sues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 

12101, et seq., and related state law. He alleges that architectural barriers at a shopping center in 

San Jose, California owned by defendants prevented him from enjoying full and equal access at 

the facility. Johnson says that despite numerous service attempts, he has been unable to serve any 

of the defendants. He moves for an order permitting service by publication.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 permits service of process as allowed by “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). In California, “[a] summons may be 

served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action 

is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another 

manner specified in this article and that,” as relevant here, “[a] cause of action exists against the 

party upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.” 

Case 5:16-cv-04064-HRL Document 16 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(a). “Other methods [of service under California law] include 

personal service, substitute service on a person found at the defendant’s usual residence or place of 

business and subsequent mailing, service by mail with confirmation of receipt, and service by mail 

on defendants outside the state of California.” Cummings v. Hale, No. 15-cv-04723-JCS, 2016 

WL 4762208, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2016); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 415.10, 415.20, 415.30, 

415.40.

Because of due process concerns, service by publication is allowed only as a last resort:

[T]he least likely [method of service] to succeed in notifying the defendant 

of an action against him is service by publication. For this reason, a court 

must first be convinced that the party to be served “cannot with reasonable 

diligence be served in another manner specified in [Article 3].” (§ 415.50.) 

“If a defendant's address is ascertainable, a method of service superior to 

publication must be employed, because constitutional principles of due 

process of law, as well as the authorizing statute, require that service by 

publication be utilized only as a last resort.” (Watts v. Crawford, [10 Cal. 

4th 743, 749 n.5 (1995)] ). In this context, “ ‘[t]he term “reasonable 

diligence” . . . denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry 

conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney. [Citations.] A 

number of honest attempts to learn defendant's whereabouts or his address 

by inquiry of relatives, . . . and by investigation of appropriate city and 

telephone directories [voters’ registries and the assessor's office property 

indices situated near the defendant's last known location] generally are 

sufficient.’” (Ibid. quoting Judicial Council com., § 415.50.)

Cummings, 2016 WL 4762208 at *2 (quoting Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. 

v. Ham, 216 Cal. App. 4th 330, 337-38 (2013)).

Here, plaintiff’s counsel avers that they searched business and property records using the 

TransUnion/TLO XP search engine’s California Ultimate Weapon Database and discovered two 

mailing addresses (one in San Jose, California and one in Truckee, California) for defendant 

Melehan, as well as one address for defendant Machado in Los Gatos, California. (Dkt. 15-1, 

Allen Decl., ¶¶ 2-4). Counsel further states that they hired process servers, who reportedly 

attempted service on defendant Melehan eight times at the San Jose address and six times at the 

address in Truckee, without success. (Id. ¶ 5-7). Counsel then sent a Notice of Acknowledgement 

and Receipt of Summons and Complaint to Melehan at both addresses, but did not receive a 

signed or returned notice. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9). Similarly, after seven unsuccessful service attempts 

reportedly were made at defendant Machado’s Los Gatos address, counsel mailed a Notice of 

Case 5:16-cv-04064-HRL Document 16 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Acknowledgement and Receipt of Summons and Complaint to Machado, but did not receive a 

signed or returned notice. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 13). The process server reportedly made two further 

service attempts on Machado, without success. (Id. ¶ 12).

Plaintiff’s motion for service by publication will be denied without prejudice because the 

present application suffers from two chief deficiencies:

1. Counsel has submitted process server affidavits attesting to service attempts, but 

the affidavits are not signed.

2. As discussed above, in addition to due diligence, plaintiff must also demonstrate 

that “[a] cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made 

or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §

415.50(a). In order to meet this requirement, plaintiff “must offer ‘independent 

evidentiary support, in the form of a sworn statement of facts, for the existence of a 

cause of action against the defendant.’” Cummings, 2016 WL 4762208 at *2 

(citing cases); Harris v. Cavasso, 68 Cal. App.3d 723, 726 (1977) (holding that 

Section 415.50(a)(1) requires “an affidavit containing a statement of some fact 

which would be legal evidence, having some appreciable tendency to make the [the 

cause of action] appear, for the Judge to act upon before he has any jurisdiction to 

make the order” authorizing service by publication). Here, plaintiff has submitted 

his counsel’s declaration attesting to the efforts made to locate and serve the 

defendants, but otherwise relies solely on the allegations of his complaint. That is 

not sufficient. See Cummings, 2016 WL 4762208 at *3 (denying an application for 

service by publication where plaintiff submitted her counsel’s disclosure statement 

that did not purport to be an affidavit, was not sworn, and did not demonstrate 

counsel’s personal knowledge of the facts at issue).

If plaintiff chooses to renew his motion for service by publication, he must file his renewed 

Case 5:16-cv-04064-HRL Document 16 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

motion by March 27, 2017.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04064-HRL Document 16 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 4