Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02362/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02362-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

DANIEL PATRICK GUERIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH NICOLO ARICO,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-02362-VKD

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

EXTEND SERVICE DEADLINE; (2) 

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE BY 

PUBLICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 9

Asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, plaintiff Daniel Guerin sues for 

personal injuries he claims he suffered in a car accident involving defendant Joseph Arico. Mr. 

Guerin now moves for a 60-day extension of time to complete service of process on Mr. Arico. 

Additionally, Mr. Guerin requests leave to effect service by publication. He has submitted a

process server’s declaration indicating that 11 attempts to personally serve Mr. Arico at his 

residence in the month of June were unsuccessful. Dkt. No. 9-1.

The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

For the reasons to be discussed, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to 

complete service and denies without prejudice the motion for leave to serve Mr. Arico by 

publication.

A. Motion to Extend Service Deadline

“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on 

motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice 

against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Case 5:18-cv-02362-VKD Document 10 Filed 07/20/18 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

“But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for 

an appropriate period.” Id. Mr. Guerin’s complaint having been filed on April 19, 2018, the 

deadline for service was July 18, 2018. However, the Court finds good cause to grant Mr. 

Guerin’s requested extension and extends the deadline for completing service of process to 

September 17, 2018.

In view of this extension, the Court continues the Initial Case Management Conference, 

currently set for July 24, 2018, to October 30, 2018, 1:30 p.m., with a Case Management 

Statement to be filed no later than October 23, 2018. All other related deadlines set in the Court’s 

Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. No. 3) are adjusted 

accordingly.

B. Motion for Leave to Serve by Publication

Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service upon an 

individual may be effected in any judicial district of the United States by “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 law provides for several means of 

effecting service upon a defendant. Service of the complaint and summons may be accomplished 

by (1) personal delivery to the party, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.10; (2) delivery to someone at the 

party’s usual residence or place of business, followed by a mailing, id. § 415.20; (3) mail with an 

acknowledgement of receipt, id. § 415.30; (4) mail on persons outside California, id. § 415.40; and 

(5) publication, id. § 415.50.

In California, service by publication is permitted (1) “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” and, as relevant here, (2) “[a] cause of action 

exists against the party upon whom service is to be made . . ..” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 

§ 415.50(a)(1). “The question is simply whether [the plaintiff] took those steps which a 

reasonable person who truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.” 

Donel, Inc. v. Badalian, 87 Cal. App.3d 327, 333 (1978). Nevertheless, because service by 

publication is “the least likely to succeed in notifying the defendant of an action against him,” it is 

Case 5:18-cv-02362-VKD Document 10 Filed 07/20/18 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

to be used “‘only as a last resort.’” Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Ham, 

216 Cal. App.4th 330, 337-38 (2013) (quoting Watts v. Crawford, 10 Cal.4th 743, 749 n.5 (1995)). 

“Accordingly, it can require exhaustive attempts to locate the defendant before this method may 

be employed.” Id. at 338. “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.’” Id. (quoting Watts, 10 Cal.4th at 749 n.5).

In view of the unsuccessful personal service attempts, Mr. Guerin says that Mr. Arico may 

be avoiding service or might not live at his listed residence. Dkt. No. 9 at 1. However, “[b]efore 

allowing a plaintiff to resort to service by publication, the courts necessarily require him to show 

exhaustive attempts to locate the defendant, for it is generally recognized that service by 

publication rarely results in actual notice.” Watts, 10 Cal.4th at 749 n.5. Although it appears that 

the process server made a number of attempts at personal service between June 2 and June 27, 

2018, this is a time of year when many people are away from their homes. Mr. Guerin has not 

shown that he has tried other means of service, much less that those other means have not been 

effective. Nor does he identify what steps, if any, he has taken to confirm whether Mr. Arico lives 

at the address where service was attempted. See e.g., Castillo-Antonio v. Azurdia, No. C13-05709 

DMR, 2014 WL 4060219 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2014) (finding that attempts at personal service 

during a time of year when people are away from home and mailing “packages” to the defendant’s 

address were insufficient to warrant service by publication); Loskot v. El Cerrito Galleria, No. 

CV12-05549-KAW, 2013 WL 6512757 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2013) (finding that while the 

plaintiffs took several reasonable steps through personal service, online searches, and phone calls 

to locate the defendants, service by publication was not warranted because the plaintiffs failed to 

confirm whether the defendants resided at the addresses where service was attempted).

Moreover, the party seeking leave to serve by publication “must offer independent 

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

against the defendant.” Cummings v. Brantley Hale, No. 15-cv-04723-JCS, 2016 WL 4762208, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2016) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “Under California law, 

service by publication is neither appropriate nor valid without such an affidavit.” Id. Mr. Guerin 

Case 5:18-cv-02362-VKD Document 10 Filed 07/20/18 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

has not provided the required affidavit to support the present motion.

For these reasons, the Court concludes that Mr. Guerin has not shown by affidavit 

“reasonable diligence” or that a cause of action exists against Mr. Arico. His motion for leave to 

serve by publication therefore is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-02362-VKD Document 10 Filed 07/20/18 Page 4 of 4