Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03055/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03055-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

*E-Filed: July 27, 2015*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELA MARINACHE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL LAWRENCE STERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03055-HRL 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SERVE 

SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 35

Daniela Marinache sues Daniel Lawrence Stern, Chi Wen Chang, and Raymond Wu for 

failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On June 5, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed the present motion for an order authorizing service of summons and complaint on 

Wu by publication. Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiff requests an order allowing her to serve Wu by 

publishing a notice about the pendency of this action in the San Jose Mercury News and Los 

Angeles Times. A hearing was held on July 21, 2015. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s 

motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was an employee of Los Gatos Green Cleaners (“LGGC”). FAC ¶¶ 1, 9, 10. 

Plaintiff alleges that LGGC is owned in a partnership between Stern, Chang, and Wu. Id. ¶¶ 1, 7,

18, 22. According to Plaintiff, she worked more than forty hours per week, but was not paid 

overtime wages or minimum wages. Id. ¶ 1. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that she was not 

Case 5:14-cv-03055-HRL Document 43 Filed 07/27/15 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

allowed to take meal and rest breaks because she was alone in the store for most of her work shift. 

Id. 

Plaintiff filed the present action in July 2014. The first amended complaint (“FAC”) (the 

operative complaint) alleges: (1) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 207, 216(b), and 255(a); (2) violation of statutory duty for breach of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 

1194, and 1194.2 assessment; (3) violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 203, 226, 226.7, 1194 and wage 

orders; (4) Cal. Lab. Code § 203 waiting time penalties; and (5) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17200 et seq. Plaintiff has moved for an order authorizing service of summons and 

complaint on Wu by publication. In addition, Plaintiff requests leave to mail Wu a letter 

informing him of the publication which includes a copy of this order, the summons, and the 

complaint, sent to both Wu’s last known address in San Jose and the address of the attorney who 

last represented Wu in bankruptcy proceedings.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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.” Notice must be “reasonably calculated, under 

all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an 

opportunity to present their objections” in order to comply with due process. Mullane v. Cent. 

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).

Pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1), the Court looks to California law to determine the sufficiency of 

the proposed service of process. California law allows for alternative service under certain 

circumstances. For example, California law permits service by publication if: (1) “upon affidavit 

it appears to the satisfaction of the court . . . that the party to be served cannot with reasonable 

diligence be served in another manner” and (2) “[a] cause of action exists against the party upon 

whom service is to be made.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(a)(1). Service by publication is 

disfavored and permitted only “as a last resort.” See Donel, Inc. v. Badalian, 87 Cal. App. 3d 327, 

332 (1978).

Case 5:14-cv-03055-HRL Document 43 Filed 07/27/15 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

In regards to the first requirement, when deciding whether a plaintiff exercised “reasonable 

diligence,” courts look to whether the plaintiff “took those steps which a reasonable person who 

truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.” Id. at 333–34. “Before 

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 v. Crawford, 10 Cal. 4th 743, 749 n.5 (1995) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “the term ‘reasonable diligence’ . . . 

denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or 

his agent or attorney.” Id. (citations and some internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[a] 

number of honest attempts to learn defendant’s whereabouts or his address by inquiry of relatives, 

. . . and by investigation of appropriate city and telephone directories, voter registries, and 

assessor’s office property indices situated near the defendant’s last known location, generally are 

sufficient.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In regards to the second requirement, Section 415.50(a)(1) requires that the plaintiff 

provide independent evidentiary support, in the form of a sworn statement of facts, for the 

existence of a cause of action against each defendant whom service by publication is requested. 

See Harris v. Cavasso, 68 Cal. App. 3d 723, 726 (1977) (holding that Section 415.50(a)(1) 

requires “an affidavit containing a statement of some fact which would be legal evidence, having 

some appreciable tendency to make the [the cause of action] appear, for the Judge to act upon 

before he has any jurisdiction to make the order” authorizing service by publication).

DISCUSSION

In regards to the first requirement, Plaintiff’s counsel performed a skip search and hired a 

process server to perform a skip search on Wu. Both results showed the best residential address as 

842 E. Julian Street, San Jose, CA 95112. See Margain Decl., Exhs. 1, 2. A process server 

attempted to serve Wu at that location, but was informed that he had moved to Los Angeles. Id., 

Exh. 3. However, based on a skip search performed in March 2015, Wu has no address in Los 

Angeles. Plaintiff’s counsel exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to locate Wu.

In regards to the second requirement, Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Declaration of 

Case 5:14-cv-03055-HRL Document 43 Filed 07/27/15 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

Tomas Margain. The declaration relies on the Order, Decision and Award of a Hearing Officer of 

the Department of Industrial Relation’s Labor Commissioner’s Office in Marinache v. Chang, 

Case No. 12-88119 JT. Margain Decl., Exh. A. In the findings of fact, the hearing officer found 

that Plaintiff was employed by LGGC from June 1, 2010 to February 29, 2012, and “some 

overtime was worked.” Id. at 2. In addition, the hearing officer found that Wu listed the dry 

cleaner business as his “sole proprietorship” in his bankruptcy filing, although Chang and Stern 

were listed as owners and registrants along with Wu in a Fictitious Business Name Statement. Id. 

Plaintiff has provided independent evidentiary support for the existence of a cause of action 

against Wu.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for an order authorizing service of 

summons and complaint on Wu by publication is granted. Plaintiff shall publish a notice about the 

pendency of this action in the San Jose Mercury News and Los Angeles Times. In addition, 

Plaintiff shall mail Wu a letter informing him of the publication which includes a copy of this 

order, the summons, and the complaint, sent to both Wu’s last known address in San Jose and the 

address of the attorney who last represented Wu in bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiff shall have 90 

days from the date of this order in which to effect service. 

The case management conference set for September 29, 2015 is continued to November 

24, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. A status report shall be filed no later than November 17, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03055-HRL Document 43 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 4