Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00809/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00809-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

This matter is before the Court on the motion for default judgment filed by Plaintiff BMO 

Bank N.A. (ECF No. 12). Despite the Court previously advising Plaintiff to “identify which 

service provisions govern and specify how they were satisfied,” Plaintiff has failed to do so in its 

motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 11, p. 2). Accordingly, the Court will permit Plaintiff to 

file a supplemental brief in support of its motion, specifically, to address how service was 

achieved on the two Defendants (1) Bring Transport Inc and (2) Gurpreet Singh Bring.

“Before assessing the merits of a default judgment,” a court must address certain 

preliminary issues, such as “the adequacy of service on the defendant.” Forestiere v. Bazzi, No. 

20-cv-03543-DMR, 2021 WL 2638052, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2021), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-03543-WHO, 2021 WL 2633393 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 

2021). Here, Plaintiff’s motion summarily states that Defendants were served via California Civil

Procedure Code § 415.20(a) by leaving the summons and complaint with managers at a postal 

station who were at least 18 years old and informed of the papers’ contents. (ECF No. 12, p. 2). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BMO BANK N.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRING TRANSPORT INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00809-KES-EPG

ORDER PERMTTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEF AS TO SERVICE

(ECF No. 12)

Case 1:24-cv-00809-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 12/17/24 Page 1 of 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

2

But there are several apparent issues with this argument. First, the cited service provision, 

§ 415.20(a) only applies to corporations and other entities, not to individuals. NewRez LLC v. 

Brosnan, No. CV 22-8822-MWF (MAAx), 2023 WL 5506000, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2023)

(noting that § 415.20 does not apply to individuals). Accordingly, while it is possible this 

provision may apply Bring Transport Inc, a corporation, it does not appear to apply to Gurpreet 

Singh Bring, who is an individual. 

Next, § 415.20(a) has several requirements:

In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person 

to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a 

summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during 

usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or 

her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office 

box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing 

a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the 

person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were 

left. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a 

mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be 

informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed 

complete on the 10th day after the mailing.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(a). Here, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment does not address

these requirements, such as explaining or providing proof that the postal mangers were “informed 

of the contents thereof.” See Block v. California-Fresno Inv. Co., No. 1:22-CV-01419-JLT-SAB, 

2023 WL 3062112, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 

WL 3582344 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2023) (concluding that boilerplate and conclusory statements 

about informing person of general nature of papers was insufficient to establish service). 

Additionally, the Court notes that there are other service provisions that may be 

applicable, but which Plaintiff does not address.1 For example, if service is made under § 415.20, 

a separate provision, § 417.10(a), requires an affidavit showing that various requirements were 

met:

If served under Section 415.10, 415.20, or 415.30, by the affidavit of the person 

making the service showing the time, place, and manner of service and facts 

showing that the service was made in accordance with this chapter. The affidavit 

shall recite or in other manner show the name of the person to whom a copy of the 

1 This order does not purport to advise Plaintiff of all potentially applicable service provisions; rather, it is 

Plaintiff’s responsibility to identify and explain how all relevant provisions have been met.

Case 1:24-cv-00809-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 12/17/24 Page 2 of 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

3

summons and of the complaint were delivered, and, if appropriate, his or her title 

or the capacity in which he or she is served, and that the notice required by Section 

412.30 appeared on the copy of the summons served, if in fact it did appear.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 417.10(a).

In turn, § 412.30 provides as follows:

In an action against a corporation or an unincorporated association (including a 

partnership), the copy of the summons that is served shall contain a notice stating 

in substance: “To the person served: You are hereby served in the within action (or 

special proceeding) on behalf of (here state the name of the corporation or the 

unincorporated association) as a person upon whom a copy of the summons and of 

the complaint may be delivered to effect service on said party under the provisions 

of (here state appropriate provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 

413.10) of the Code of Civil Procedure).” If service is also made on such person as 

an individual, the notice shall also indicate that service is being made on such 

person as an individual as well as on behalf of the corporation or the 

unincorporated association.

If such notice does not appear on the copy of the summons served, no default may 

be taken against such corporation or unincorporated association or against such 

person individually, as the case may be.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 412.30.

Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff appears to indicate that both Defendants were served 

at a private mailbox. If so, the Court notes that a different provision governing private mailboxes

may apply: 

Notwithstanding subdivision (b), if the only address reasonably known for the 

person to be served is a private mailbox obtained through a commercial mail 

receiving agency, service of process may be effected on the first delivery attempt 

by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with the commercial mail 

receiving agency in the manner described in subdivision (d) of Section 17538.5 of 

the Business and Professions Code.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(c). However, Plaintiff does not appear to rely on this provision and 

does not explain how all applicable service requirements related to it have been met. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the entry of this order to file a supplement brief, no 

longer than ten pages including exhibits, identifying the specific provisions under which 

service was achieved for each Defendant and explaining how all requirements of the 

applicable provisions were met.

\\\

Case 1:24-cv-00809-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 12/17/24 Page 3 of 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

4

2. If Plaintiff chooses not to file a supplement, or files a supplement that fails to comply with 

this order, the Court may recommend that the motion for default judgment be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00809-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 12/17/24 Page 4 of 4