Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02389/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02389-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEYA MORGAN aka KEYARASH MAZHARI

aka KEYA MAZHARI, KEYA GALLERY,

NOVA WINES, INC.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-2389 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

KEYA MORGAN AND KEYA GALLERY’S

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF

DEFAULT; VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 85)

Before the Court is the motion filed February 14, 2007 by defendants Keya Morgan

aka Keyarash Mazhari aka Keya Mazhari (“Morgan”) and Keya Gallery (“Gallery”) to set

aside the default entered by the Clerk of the Court against both defendants on February 2,

2007. Plaintiff Pete Livingston (“Livingston”) has filed opposition to the motion; Morgan and

the Gallery have filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral

argument, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the April 6, 2007 hearing, and rules as

follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 5, 2006, Livingston filed the instant action, alleging claims of copyright

infringement, conversion, and unfair competition against Morgan, the Gallery, and other

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 9
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

 The proofs of service failed to state that service of the “supplementary material”

required by Civil Local Rule 4-2 was effected. (See id. ¶ 5.)

2

defendants. On September 1, 2006, Livingston filed an amended complaint. On October

27, 2006, Livingston filed a second amended complaint.

On November 15, 2006, Livingston filed an ex parte application seeking an

extension of time to serve Morgan and the Gallery with the second amended summons and

complaint because, according to Livingston’s counsel, “the proofs of service [of the original

complaint] were incomplete.” (See Simpich Decl. Ex. 5-A ¶ 20.)1

 On November 17, 2006,

the Court granted Livingston’s request, and extended to December 31, 2006 the deadline

to serve Morgan and the Gallery. 

On February 1, 2007, Livingston filed a motion for entry of default against Morgan

and the Gallery, as well as proofs of service attesting that service had been accomplished

on Morgan and the Gallery on December 28, 2006 and November 28, 2006, respectively. 

Neither Morgan nor the Gallery have answered the complaint. On February 2, 2007, the

Clerk entered default against Morgan and the Gallery. 

On February 14, 2007, Morgan and the Gallery filed the instant motion, pursuant to

Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to set aside the entry of default for both

lack of service and lack of personal jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or good cause

shown, the court may set aside an entry of default.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Morgan

and the Gallery argue they were never served and, consequently, that entry of default was

improper. See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc., 840

F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant

unless the defendant has been served properly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”); see also Mason

v. Genisco Technology Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding where service is

not properly effected, any default entered “is void”).

//

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 9
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

 Livingston does not contend service was effected on Morgan pursuant to New York

law.

3

A. Service on Morgan

Rule 4 provides that “service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been

obtained and filed” may be effected in any judicial district of the United States in several

ways. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). First, the summons and complaint may be delivered to the

individual “personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual’s dwelling house or

usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein

or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by

appointment or by law to receive service of process.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). 

Alternatively, service can be effected pursuant to the law of the state in which the district

court is located (in this case, California), or in which service is effected (in this case, New

York).2

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). “Once service is challenged, [the] plaintiff[ ] bear[s] the

burden of establishing that service was valid under Rule 4.” See Brockmeyer v. May, 383

F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004).

1. Attempts to Serve Original Summons and Complaint

a. May 2006 Attempt

According to the proof of service, the original summons and complaint were served

on “Keya Morgan a/k/a Keyarash Mazhari a/k/a Keya Mazhari by [the process server’s]

personally delivering a true copy of the Summons and Complaint to Carmen Fotiadis,

Receptionist, a person of suitable age and discretion,” at “14 Wall Street, New York, NY

10005” on May 11, 2006, and by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the

same address. (See Simpich Decl. Ex. 5-B at Ex. 3.) Livingston submits no evidence that

“14 Wall Street” is Morgan’s residence or that Carman Fotiadis is Morgan’s agent for

service of process. Accordingly, Livingston has not demonstrated service pursuant to

Rule 4(e)(2).

Service under California law likewise was ineffective. Pursuant to California Code of

Civil Procedure § 415.20, service may be effected “by leaving a copy of the summons and

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 9
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

 Faced with Morgan’s attestation that “14 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005” is not

Morgan’s usual place of business, Livingston, who has “the burden of establishing that

service was valid,” see Brockmeyer, 383 F.3d at 801, continues to rely solely on a form

proof of service, in which the process server states such address is Morgan’s “actual place

of business.” (See Simpich Decl. Ex. 5-B at Ex. 3.) Cf. Largey v. Intrastate

Radiotelephone, Inc., 136 Cal. App. 3d 660, 672 (1982) (holding that if a party fails to

produce “stronger and more satisfactory” evidence, when it was within his power to do so,

the proffered evidence may be viewed with “distrust”). 

4

complaint at the person’s . . . usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a

United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of . . . a person apparently in

charge of his or her office, 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

contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the 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.” See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b). Although

Morgan concedes that the Gallery “maintains a post office address at 14 Wall Street, 20th

Floor, New York City, Box 64,” he attests that such address “is merely a post office box in a

service center . . . on the 20th floor of the building.” (See Morgan Decl. ¶ 2.) Morgan

attests that “[n]either [Morgan] nor the Keya Gallery occupies any space at that address for

conducting business, other than a post office box to receive mail” and that “[n]o one

working at the service center . . . is employed by or the agent of [Morgan] or the Keya

Gallery.” (See Morgan Decl. ¶ 2.) Livingston has not submitted sufficient evidence to the

contrary.3 Morgan further attests that he has never received by mail any documents

relating to the instant lawsuit, (see id. ¶ 4), and there is no evidence that the summons and

complaint were delivered to the service center on the 20th floor, where Morgan’s post office

box is located. Accordingly, Livingston has not demonstrated service under § 415.20. 

b. July 2006 Attempts at Service

Livingston states he subsequently spoke by telephone with Morgan, that Morgan

thereafter consented to accept service by mail, and that such mailings were made,

respectively, on July 11, 2006 to “14 Wall Street,” (see Simpich Decl. Ex. 5-A ¶¶ 6-7), and

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 4 of 9
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

4

 Morgan concedes the Gallery “also maintains a post office box at P.O. Box 7412,

New York, New York, 10116.” (See Morgan Decl. ¶ 3.)

5

on July 27, 2006 to “PO Box 7412,” (see id. ¶ 9).4

 Although Livingston cites no authority in

support of his contention that such mailings under such circumstances constitute service,

he may be relying on the “waiver of service” provision set forth in Rule 4(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Rule 4(d) permits a plaintiff to effect service by mailing to the defendant a copy of

the complaint along with a request for waiver of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Such

service is effective when the defendant returns the waiver and the plaintiff “files [such]

waiver of service with the court.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(4). “If the defendant agrees to

waive service [pursuant to Rule 4(d)], the defendant’s waiver has the same effect as actual

service.” See Brockmeyer, 383 F.3d at 807. Livingston, however, has not filed a waiver

returned by Morgan as required by Rule 4(d), and accordingly, Livingston fails to

demonstrate service under Rule (4)(d). 

Although California law permits service by mail on persons outside the state, see

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.40, such service is valid only if it “include[s] evidence

satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed

receipt or other evidence,” see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 417.20. In the instant case, there is

no evidence of “actual delivery” to Morgan. There is no signed receipt or other evidence

that Morgan received the July 11 mailing, and Morgan attests he “ha[s] never received any

[documents] in the mail” relating to the instant action. (See Morgan Decl. ¶ 5.) With

respect to the July 27 mailing, there is undisputed evidence that the documents were

returned because they were “unclaimed,” (see Simpich Decl. Ex. 5-B at Exs. 12, 13). 

Consequently, Livingston’s mailings of the complaint to Morgan did not constitute service

under § 415.40. See Stamps v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. App. 3d 108, 110 (1971) (finding

service by mail ineffective under § 415.40 where return receipt stated mail was

“unclaimed”).

//

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 5 of 9
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

5

 Morgan attests that the Gallery “also maintains a post office box at . . . P.O. Box

8296, New York, New York.” (See Morgan Decl. ¶ 3.)

6

 The process server also attests that on November 28, 2006 he “attempted” service

by personally delivering copies “to Eric William, a person of suitable age and discretion.” 

(See RJN Ex. 6-A ¶ 2.) Again, the place of delivery and relationship to Morgan are

6

c. Summary

Accordingly, Livingston has not demonstrated that any of the attempts to serve the

original summons and complaint constitutes service of process on Morgan.

2. Attempt to Serve First Amended Summons and Complaint

On September 6, 2006, Livingston mailed the first amended summons and

complaint to Morgan at “PO Box 8296.”5

 (See Simpich Decl. Ex. 5-A ¶ 18.) Morgan denies

receiving the documents, however, (see Morgan Decl. ¶ 3), and Livingston acknowledges

that such documents were “returned to sender because [they were] not claimed by Mr.

Morgan,” (see Simpich Decl. Ex. 5-A ¶ 19). For the reasons set forth above, such mailing

does not constitute service of process. 

3. Attempt to Serve Second Amended Summons and Complaint

With respect to the attempt to serve the second amended summons and complaint,

Livingston submits a declaration from the process server, attesting that he served Morgan

by delivering such documents to “Micaela Banton, receptionist” on December 28, 2006, and

by mailing copies that same date to Morgan at two addresses: 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor,

New York, NY 10005 and P.O. Box 8296, New York, NY 10116. (See Request for Judicial

Notice (“RJN”) Ex. 6-A ¶¶ 5, 7.) The declaration does not disclose the location where such

delivery to Micaela Banton occurred, however. Additionally, Livingston submits no

evidence with respect to Micaela Banton’s relationship, if any, to Morgan or to the Gallery. 

Morgan attests “he do[es] not know a person named Micaela Banton.” (See Morgan Decl.

¶ 5.) Morgan further attests he has “never been personally served with any document

relating to this lawsuit . . . and [has] never received any in the mail.” (See id. ¶ 4.) 

Accordingly, Livingston has not demonstrated that delivery of the second amended

summons and complaint to Micaela Banton constitutes service of process on Morgan.6

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 6 of 9
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

unstated. Morever, the process server does not attest that he mailed any copies on that

date. 

7

 Livingston does not contend service was effected on the Gallery pursuant to New

York law.

8

 Although Morgan states in his motion that the Gallery “is nothing other than a dba

of . . . Morgan,” (see Motion at 7:24), Morgan submits no evidence in support of such

assertion.

7

With respect to the mailing of the second amended summons and complaint to

Morgan, (see id. ¶ 7), Morgan denies receiving the documents, (see Morgan Decl. ¶ 3),

and there is no signed receipt or other evidence that Morgan in fact received the mailing. 

Accordingly, for the reasons state forth above, Livingston has not demonstrated the abovedescribed mailings constitute service of process.

In sum, Livingston has not demonstrated that he served the second amended

summons and complaint on Morgan.

B. Service on the Gallery 

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service on a business

entity may be effected “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an

officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by

law to receive service of process and, if the agent is one authorized by statute to receive

service and the statute so requires, by also mailing a copy to the defendant.” See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(h)(1). Alternatively, under Rule 4, a business entity may be served pursuant to

either the laws of the state where the district court is located or where service is

attempted.7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1), 4(e)(1). 

Pursuant to California law, service on a business entity may be effected in several

ways depending on the form of the business entity. See, e.g., Cal. Code Civ. Proc.

§§ 416.10 - 416.40. Here, there is no evidence before the Court as to the organizational

form of the Gallery.8

 Where the form of a business organization is unknown, California law

provides that the business may be served by “leaving a copy of the summons and

complaint during usual office hours with the person who is apparently in charge of the office

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

of that business organization, 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 was left.” See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.95.

1. Attempts to Serve Original Summons and Complaint

According to the proof of service, the original summons and complaint were served

on “Keya Gallery by [the process server’s] personally delivering a true copy of the

Summons and Complaint to Carmen Fotiadis, a person of suitable age and discretion” at

“14 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005” on May 11, 2006, and by mailing a copy of the

summons and complaint to the same address. (See Simpich Decl. Ex. 5-B at Ex. 3 at 2.) 

Livingston submits no evidence with respect to Carmen Fotiadis’ position, if any, with

the Gallery, nor does he submit any evidence that “14 Wall Street” is a location where any

business related to the Gallery takes place. Although Morgan concedes that the Gallery

“maintains a post office address at 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York City, Box 64,” he

attests that such address “is merely a post office box in a service center.” (See Morgan

Decl. ¶ 2.) Morgan further attests that “[n]either [Morgan] nor the Keya Gallery occupies

any space at that address for conducting business, other than a post office box to receive

mail” and that “[n]o one working at the service center . . . is employed by or the agent of

[Morgan] or the Keya Gallery.” (See Morgan Decl. ¶ 2.) Livingston submits no evidence to

the contrary. 

Accordingly, such attempt to serve the original summons and complaint on the

Gallery was ineffective. 

2. Attempts to Serve Second Amended Summons and Complaint

On February 1, 2007, Livingston filed a document titled “Amended Proof of Service

of Defendant Keya Gallery,” in which a process server attests that he served the second

amended summons and complaint on November 28, 2006 “upon Keya Morgan aka

Keyarash Mazhari aka Keya Mazhari by personally delivering copies of said documents to

Eric William” and thereafter mailing copies to “Keya Gallery, P.O. Box 7412, New York City,

NY 10116.” (See RJN Ex. 6-B ¶¶ 2, 4.) Although, the process server describes Eric

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

 In light of this ruling, the Court does not reach defendants’ additional argument that

insufficient contacts exist between the defendants and the forum state to support the

exercise of personal jurisdiction over them.

9

William as “the managing agent,” (see id. ¶ 3), the declaration does not state where the

delivery to Eric William took place, (see id. ¶ 2), and Morgan attests he does not know Eric

William and that such person “is not an agent or an employee of the . . . Gallery or

[Morgan],” (see Morgan Decl. ¶ 2). Under such circumstances, the process server’s

unsupported statement that Eric William is a “managing agent” is insufficient to support a

finding that Eric William is one of the persons who may be served on behalf of the Gallery

pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1). 

Likewise, Livingston has not complied with the requirements of California Code of

Civil Procedure § 415.95. There is no evidence that Eric William was served at the Gallery

or that he appeared to be in charge of the Gallery, and, in any event, Livingston has failed

to show a copy of the second amended summons and complaint was mailed to “the place

where a copy of [such] summons and complaint was left,” see Cal. Code Civ. Proc.

§ 415.95; rather, the process server attests that he mailed a copy of the second amended

summons and complaint to the Gallery at a post office box. (See RJN Ex. 6-B ¶ 4.)

Accordingly, the attempt to serve the second amended summons and complaint on

the Gallery was ineffective. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Livingston has failed to demonstrate he served

Morgan or the Gallery and, accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to set aside

entry of default against defendants Keya Morgan and Keya Gallery.9

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 145 Filed 04/18/07 Page 9 of 9