Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05030/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05030-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:185 Employee Pension Plan

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

LARRY TOTTEN et al,

Plaintiffs,

v

BLAIR EXCAVATORS, INC et al,

Defendant. /

No C-03-5030 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a motion pursuant to FRCP 25(a) to

substitute Deborah Jean Blair (“Deborah Blair”) for her deceased

husband, defendant Victor A Blair (“Victor Blair”). Doc #36. The

motion was noticed for hearing on June 2, 2005. Deborah Blair did

not respond to the motion to substitute, and the court ordered her

to show cause in writing by June 13, 2005, why the motion should

not be treated as unopposed. Doc #38. The court has received no

response to the order to show cause.

Rule 25(a)(1) provides that under certain circumstances a

party may be substituted upon death; the rule requires that for

“persons not parties” (such as Deborah Blair here), a motion under

Rule 25(a)(1) must “be served * * * in the manner provided in Rule

Case 3:03-cv-05030-VRW Document 40 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4 for the service of a summons.” Rule 4(e) 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:

(1) pursuant to the law of the state in

which the district court is located, or in

which service is effected, for the service

of a summons upon the defendant in an

action brought in the courts of general

jurisdiction of the State; or

(2) by delivering a copy of the summons

and of the complaint 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.

The proofs of service on Deborah Blair filed in this case

(Doc #36 Att 4, #37, #39) all identify 5241 Old Redwood Highway,

PMB #1, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 as the place of service. The papers

suggest that “PMB” stands for “private mail box” -- a rented

facility for receiving mail -- and indeed, located at 5241 Old

Redwood Highway is a business known as Larkfield Self Storage,

which one process server described as “a private mailbox rental

service.” Doc #37. The papers suggest that this Larkfield Self

Storage was the only location at which personal service was

attempted. There is no indication that Larkfield Self Storage is

Deborah Blair’s usual dwelling place, her place of business or, for

that matter, somewhere she frequents.

The foregoing details about plaintiffs’ attempts at

service reveal that Rule 4 (and thus Rule 25(a)(1)) has not been

satisfied. There is no waiver of service pursuant to Rule 4(d). 

Case 3:03-cv-05030-VRW Document 40 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

There has been no personal service or service at Deborah Blair’s

“dwelling house or usual place of abode” pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2). 

And California’s rules for service of process (incorporated by FRCP

4(e)(1)) provide that service at a “usual mailing address” is

effective only “[i]f [papers] cannot with reasonable diligence be

personally delivered to the person to be served.” Cal Civ Pro Code

§ 415.20(b). Giving up on personal service after repeatedly

visiting one location (the self-storage facility) where the party

to be served is unlikely to be found does not constitute

“reasonable diligence.” See Doc #36 Att 4 (mail service only to

5241 Old Redwood Highway); Doc #37 (hand delivery to 5241 Old

Redwood Highway); Doc #39 (repeated attempts at service all made at

5241 Old Redwood Highway).

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs have failed

to comply with Rule 25. But this is not grounds for denying the

motion with prejudice, for plaintiffs have 120 days under Rule 4(m)

in which to effect proper service of their motion to substitute. 

The motion to substitute (Doc #36) is therefore DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to plaintiffs renoticing the motion if and when they

succeed in serving Deborah Blair. The court admonishes plaintiffs,

however, that it will not extend the time for service under Rule

4(m), and a failure to effect service within 120 days of the April

13, 2005, filing of plaintiffs’ motion to substitute will result in

/

/

/

/

/

Case 3:03-cv-05030-VRW Document 40 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

dismissal of the claims against Victor Blair pursuant to the third

sentence of FRCP 25(a)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05030-VRW Document 40 Filed 06/14/05 Page 4 of 4