Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03957/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03957-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-03957-LHK 

ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

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

JUAN HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-03957-LHK 

ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE BY 

PUBLICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Plaintiffs Juan Hernandez, Nathan Velasquez, Frank Velasquez, Rachel Casey, Mark 

Doering, Mary Doering, Barbara Arigoni, Dustin Haines-Scrodin, Andrew Zambetti, Christina 

Wong, Craig Parsons, the minor I.P., Greg Hyver, and Todd Broome (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 

bring this putative class action against Defendants the City of San Jose (“City”); Sam Liccardo, 

the Mayor of San Jose, in his individual capacity (“Liccardo”); Edgardo Garcia, the Police Chief 

of San Jose (“Garcia”) (collectively, “named City Defendants”); Does 1–15; Anthony Yi; the 

minor H.A.; the minor S.M.; and Does 16–38. ECF No. 1 (Compl.). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 

“Ex Parte Application for Order for Publication of Summons.” ECF No. 33 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs 

allege that despite reasonable diligence, Plaintiffs have been unable to personally serve Defendant 

Anthony Yi. Mot. at 2–4. Therefore, Defendants request leave to serve Anthony Yi by publication 

Case 5:16-cv-03957-LHK Document 34 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 16-CV-03957-LHK 

ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

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

in the San Jose Mercury News Newspaper. Id. For the reasons discussed below, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges the following facts. Plaintiffs are individuals who attended a rally 

for presidential candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump”) on June 2, 2016 at the McEnery 

Convention Center (“Convention Center”) in San Jose, California. Compl. ¶¶ 38–39. At the end of 

the rally, as Plaintiffs were leaving the building, San Jose police and other police officers directed 

Plaintiffs from the east-northeast exit of the Convention Center. Id. ¶ 45. A police line outside the 

exit “directed the Trump supporters to turn north and to proceed along Market Street, into [a] 

crowd of violent anti-Trump protesters.” Id. ¶ 46. “The police also actively prevented the Trump 

Rally attendees from proceeding south along Market Street, away from the anti-Trump protesters, 

or from leaving the convention center through alternative exits.” Id. ¶ 47. When Plaintiffs reached 

the anti-Trump protesters, the protesters attacked. Id. ¶ 48. Among other alleged acts of violence, 

protesters threw a bottle, eggs, and a tomato at Plaintiff Rachel Casey, id. ¶ 82, hit Plaintiff 

Andrew Zambetti with a bag of rocks, id. ¶ 97–100, and threatened and intimidated Plaintiffs Greg 

Hyver and Todd Broome, id. ¶¶ 138–39, 145. During these attacks, Plaintiffs allege that police

officers directed Plaintiffs into dangerous areas and deliberately did not intervene when violence 

erupted. Id. ¶¶ 50–58, 64, 100, 114–15.

Plaintiffs allege that Anthony Yi stole Plaintiff Nathan Velasquez’s hat as Nathan 

Velasquez exited the Trump Rally with his father, Frank Velasquez. Id. ¶¶ 65–66. After stealing 

the hat, Anthony Yi allegedly ran approximately 25 yards and fell down. Id. ¶ 67. After Anthony 

Yi fell, Plaintiff Nathan Velasquez helped Anthony Yi to his feet while looking at the hats that 

Anthony Yi was holding to see if any of them belonged to Plaintiff Nathan Velasquez. Id. ¶ 69. As 

Anthony Yi stood up, he allegedly struck Plaintiff Nathan Velasquez in the head with his fist, 

“causing him severe emotional trauma, including a concussion, and extreme emotional distress.”

Id. ¶ 5. Immediately afterward, Anthony Yi and other protesters allegedly made verbal threats and 

threatening hand gestures to Plaintiff Nathan Velasquez. Id. ¶ 73.

Case 5:16-cv-03957-LHK Document 34 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 16-CV-03957-LHK 

ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

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

Plaintiffs assert several claims against Anthony Yi: assault, id. ¶¶ 245–51, battery, id. ¶¶ 

252–58, violation of California Civil Code § 51.7, id. ¶¶ 259–63, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, id. ¶¶ 264–68, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, id. ¶¶ 269–73. On 

October 13, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by 

Plaintiffs the City of San Jose, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, and San Jose Police Chief Edgardo 

Garcia. ECF No. 30. This order did not address any claims against Anthony Yi.

II. DISCUSSION

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

(“Rule”) 4. Rule 4(e)(1) allows for 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.”

California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50 provides that “[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.”

Thus, if the requirements of § 415.50 are met in this case, Plaintiffs may use the method of service 

described by § 415.50 under Rule 4(e)(1).

The second requirement, that “[a] cause of action exists against the party,” Cal. Civ. Pro. 

Code § 415.50, is clearly met. Plaintiffs have alleged that Anthony Yi struck Plaintiff Nathan 

Velasquez in the head. Anthony Yi is a named Defendant in the case, and Plaintiffs have asserted 

five causes of action against Anthony Yi. Thus, a cause of action exists against Anthony Yi.

Plaintiffs have also met the first requirement of reasonable diligence. The affidavits

accompanying Plaintiffs’ motion demonstrate that plaintiffs have used reasonable diligence in 

attempting to serve Anthony Yi. Plaintiffs have hired two professional process servers, requested 

information from the Santa Clara County Probation Department, searched social media platforms, 

and sought to verify Anthony Yi’s address using the Santa Clara County voter registration portal. 

See Decl. of Gregory R. Michael, ECF No. 33-2 (describing attorney’s attempts to locate Anthony 

Case 5:16-cv-03957-LHK Document 34 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 16-CV-03957-LHK 

ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

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

Yi). One process server made four attempts to serve Anthony Yi at two different addresses 

without success. Affidavit of Process Server Kris W. Vorsatz, ECF No. 33-5.

California courts have found that similar attempts to locate a defendant are sufficient to 

demonstrate “reasonable diligence” under § 415.50. For example, in Giorgio v. Synergy Mgmt. 

Grp., LLC, 231 Cal. App. 4th 241, 248 (2014), the plaintiff had attempted to locate and serve the 

defendant through online searches, hiring two process servers, and attempting to send mail to 

defendant’s only known address. The California Court of Appeal found that these efforts provided 

“substantial evidence” that the defendant “could not with reasonable diligence be served 

personally or by mail.” Id. 

In this case, the affidavits show that Plaintiffs have made a “thorough but unsuccessful 

search for the defendant.” Judicial Council Comment to Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 415.50. This is 

enough to meet the requirements of § 415.50.

Plaintiffs have met the requirements of § 415.50 and are therefore entitled to effectuate 

service by publication “in a named newspaper, published in this state, that is most likely to give 

actual notice to the party to be served.” Cal. Civ. Pro. Code. § 4150.50(b). Both of the addresses 

that Plaintiffs had obtained for Anthony Yi were in San Jose. ECF No. 33-5. Therefore, the 

newspaper that is most likely to give actual notice to Anthony Yi is a newspaper in San Jose. At 

least one court has approved the San Jose Mercury News as a newspaper in which publication is 

proper, see Marinache v. Stern, 2015 WL 4537952, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2015) (approving 

publication in the San Jose Mercury News), and the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara’s

website lists the San Jose Mercury News as a newspaper of general publication, 

http://www.scscourt.org/forms_and_filing/forms/PB-4000.pdf. Thus, the Court finds that the San 

Jose Mercury News is a proper newspaper for publication of service.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for service by publication is GRANTED. 

Publication shall be made in the San Jose Mercury News once a week for four weeks. Plaintiffs 

have six weeks from the date of this order to complete service by publication. If Anthony Yi’s 

Case 5:16-cv-03957-LHK Document 34 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 16-CV-03957-LHK 

ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

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

address is ascertained prior to the expiration of the time prescribed for publication of the 

summons, a copy of the summons and complaint and of the order for publication shall 

immediately be served on Anthony Yi. This order does not preclude service upon Anthony Yi in

any other manner specified in the California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10 through § 415.30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03957-LHK Document 34 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 5