Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02625/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02625-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

KENNETH L. LENK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02625-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

DEADLINE AND FOR SUBSTITUTED 

SERVICE; CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

[Re: ECF 30]

Plaintiff Kenneth L. Lenk brings this action against Defendants Monolithic Power 

Systems, Inc. (“Monolithic”) and Maurice Sciammas (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged 

employment discrimination and retaliation. Compl., ECF 1. Pursuant to this Court’s prior orders, 

Plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to serve both Defendants. See Mot. for Extension of 

Deadline & Substituted Service (“Mot.”), ECF 30. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to serve 

both Defendants via alternative means. Id. Lenk also seeks an extension of time to serve all the 

unserved defendants. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

I. ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF SERVICE

Based on the exhibits and declarations attached to Lenk’s motion, Lenk has been 

unsuccessful in his numerous attempts to personally serve Defendants. Lenk hired Kenneth T. 

Smith, a licensed process server, to serve Defendants. A licensed process server working for the 

same company as Smith attempted to personally serve Monolithic at its San Jose address during 

business hours on five separate occasions. Appendix A-1 to Mot., ECF 30. The same company 

attempted personal service on Sciammas at his business address on the same five occasions and 

twice at his home address. Appendix A-2, A-3 to Mot., ECF 30. 

Case 5:16-cv-02625-BLF Document 31 Filed 02/07/17 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides the applicable authority for serving an 

individual within a judicial district of the United States:

Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual – other than a 

minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been 

filed – may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:

(1) 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 . . . . 

To that end, Section 413.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states (emphasis 

added):

Where no provision is made in this chapter or other law for the 

service of summons, the court in which the action is pending may 

direct that summons be served in a manner which is reasonably 

calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served and that 

proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court.

Because it appears that Defendants are attempting to evade service and because Lenk has 

made substantial efforts to personally serve Defendants, the Court finds that in these 

circumstances, service by mail would be “reasonably calculated to give actual notice” to 

Defendants. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30. Accordingly, the Court will allow Lenk to serve 

Defendants through the United States Postal Service via first-class mail (without a return receipt).1 

To effectuate service, Lenk must mail each Defendant a copy of the summons, complaint, and this 

order. Plaintiff must serve Monolithic at its place of business and through its agent, The 

Corporation Trust Company. Plaintiff must serve Sciammas at his place of business and at his

residence. Plaintiff shall file an affidavit of service showing compliance with these requirements.

Because Lenk previously emailed Defendants a request to waive service and received a 

response from Defendants’ counsel, the Court is satisfied that service by e-mail would be 

“reasonably calculated to give actual notice” to Defendants. See Pl.’s Response to Judge 

Freeman’s Order ¶ 11, ECF 19. Accordingly, Lenk shall also serve Defendants by e-mail. See 

UnitedHealth Servs., Inc. v. Meyer, No. 12-6197, 2013 WL 843698, at*1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 

2013); Aevoe Corp. v. Pace, No. 11-3215, 2011 WL 3904133, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011). 

 

1

The Court is concerned that a return receipt could be a vehicle through which service is thwarted.

Case 5:16-cv-02625-BLF Document 31 Filed 02/07/17 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

II. EXTENSION OF TIME

Lenk also requests an extension of time to serve Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m) 

requires a district court to grant an extension of time if good cause is shown and permits the 

district court to grant such an extension even absent good cause. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 

1088, 1090 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). A defendant’s evasion of service can be “good cause.” Wei v. 

State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1985). In support of “good cause,” “[a] plaintiff may 

also [ ] show the following: (a) the party to be served personally received actual notice of the 

lawsuit; (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced 

if his complaint were dismissed. Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991).

Even if a good cause finding is not necessary, Lenk has demonstrated good cause here. 

Lenk has been diligent in attempting to serve Defendants and a significant amount of time was 

required for Lenk to do so. The facts presented to the Court are consistent with potential evasion 

of service. There is no evidence that Defendants will suffer prejudice if the Court were to grant 

this extension because the proceeding is still at its early stage. In contrast, dismissing the claims 

against Defendants would prejudice Lenk.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The motion to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants Monolithic and Sciammas 

by mail and e-mail is GRANTED. Defendant Monolithic shall be served at the following 

addresses: (1) 79 Great Oaks Blvd., San Jose, CA 95119 and (2) The Corporation Trust Company, 

Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801. Plaintiff must mail 

Monolithic a copy of the summons, the complaint, and this order. Defendant Monolithic shall also 

be served via e-mail. 

Defendant Sciammas shall be served at the following addresses: (1) 79 Great Oaks Blvd., 

San Jose, CA 95119 and (2) 201 Forrester Rd., Los Gatos, CA 95032. Plaintiff must mail 

Sciammas a copy of the summons, the complaint, and this order. Sciammas shall also be served 

via e-mail.

The Court also GRANTS Lenk a 30-day extension to serve Defendants. Plaintiff shall 

Case 5:16-cv-02625-BLF Document 31 Filed 02/07/17 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

have until March 10, 2017, to effect service on Defendants and file proof of service. If Plaintiff 

does not do so on or before February 3, 2017, the Court will dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b) without further notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Finally, the Court CONTINUES the case management conference scheduled for February 

23, 2017, to May 4, 2017, at 11:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2017

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02625-BLF Document 31 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 4