Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02780/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02780-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

JOSE DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEMARIO L. FREELAND, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-2780 EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO

PUBLISH SUMMONS

(Docket Nos. 11, 80)

On January 13, 2006, Plaintiff Jose Duarte filed an ex parte application, asking the Court for

leave to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants Demario Freeland and Vuyo Mbuli

(collectively “Student Defendants”) by publication. On December 21, 2007, Mr. Duarte filed

another motion, asking that the Court render a decision on his pending request to serve by

publication. Subsequently, the case was reassigned all purposes to the undersigned and Mr.

Duarte’s motions were thereby given to the undersigned for resolution. 

None of the Defendants who have appeared in the case has opposed Mr. Duarte’s request for

service by publication. However, after reviewing Mr. Duarte’s motions, the Court had concerns that

service by publication may not be appropriate, at least at this juncture, and therefore asked that

Defendant the Oakland Unified School District provide information within its possession, custody,

and control to both Mr. Duarte and the Court in order for the Court to better evaluate Mr. Duarte’s

motions. Having considered Mr. Duarte’s motions and their accompanying submissions, the

information provided by the District, and all other evidence of record, the Court hereby GRANTS

Case 3:05-cv-02780-EMC Document 102 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Mr. Duarte’s request for a decision to be made on his motion for service by publication but DENIES

the motion for service by publication. The denial shall be without prejudice.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Mr. Duarte seeks permission of the Court to serve the Student Defendants by publication

rather than by other means such as personal service. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e),

service upon an individual defendant may be effected in any judicial district of the United States

pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located or in which service is effected. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Service by publication is permissible under California law in certain

circumstances:

(a) 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 . . .

(1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom

service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or

proper party to the action.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(a). In his third amended complaint, Mr. Duarte has stated at the very

least a cause of action against the Student Defendants for assault and battery. The main question for

the Court, therefore, is whether the Student Defendants “cannot with reasonable diligence be served

in another manner” pursuant to California law. Id.

In determining whether a plaintiff has exercised “reasonable diligence” for purposes of §

415.50(a), a court must examine the affidavit required by the statute to see whether the plaintiff

“took those steps 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); see also Watts v.

Crawford, 10 Cal. 4th 743, 749 n.5 (1995) (“The term ‘reasonable diligence’ . . . denotes a thorough,

systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney.”). 

Because of due process concerns, service by publication must be allowed “only as a last resort.” Id.;

see also Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (discussing due

process and notice to a party). “‘Before allowing a plaintiff to resort to service by publication, the

Case 3:05-cv-02780-EMC Document 102 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The District has confirmed that this was the last known address on file with the District for Mr.

Freeland and his parents or guardians.

3

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. 

The fact that a plaintiff has taken one or a few reasonable steps does not necessarily mean that “all

myriad . . . avenues” have been properly exhausted to warrant service by publication. Donel, 87 Cal.

App. 3d at 333. 

In the instant case, Mr. Duarte has submitted an affidavit explaining his efforts to serve the

summons on the Student Defendants. See Pl.s’ App. Mr. Duarte has also provided declarations

from the process servers that he hired which describe their attempts to personally serve the summons

on each Student Defendant. Id., Exs. 1-2. Although these documents demonstrates that several

reasonable steps were taken to effect service on the Student Defendants, the Court concludes that

Mr. Duarte has not made the reasonably diligent search required by § 415.50(a) to warrant the lastresort measure of summons by publication. See Watts, 10 Cal. 4th at 749. 

B. Mr. Freeland

With respect to Mr. Freeland, Mr. Duarte’s affidavit states that he hired the professional

process server Western Messenger to serve summons. See Pl.’s App. ¶¶ 4-5. According to the

Western Messenger server’s declaration of due diligence, the server attempted personal service on

Demario Freeland at 690 15th Street, Apartment 303, Oakland, California, 94612,1

 three times but

was unable to effect personal service. See id., Ex. 1. On the first two occasions, the server reported

that “there was no answer at the door, could not verify address.” Id. On the third and final attempt,

the server was able to get into the building but there was no answer at Apartment 303. The server

spoke to a neighbor who could not verify the residents of Apartment 303. Id. After Western

Messenger was unable to serve Mr. Freeland, Mr. Duarte conducted a search on accurint.com, a

Lexis-Nexis-run web service providing searches for records on individuals, for Mr. Freeland’s

whereabouts. See id. ¶ 10. Mr. Duarte’s accurint.com search for “Demario Freeland” -- which he

made on January 6, 2006 -- resulted in no records. See id. ¶ 10, Ex. 2. 

Case 3:05-cv-02780-EMC Document 102 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The District has provided information to both the Court and Mr. Duarte showing that Mr.

Freeland was not a minor as of the dates Mr. Duarte attempted service, and therefore service attempts

on his parents or guardians were not required. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.60.

4

Although Mr. Duarte has demonstrated that he has taken several reasonable steps to effect

service on Mr. Freeland, Mr. Duarte has failed to show that he “took those steps a reasonable person

who truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.”2

 Donel, 87 Cal. App.

3d at 333. Although Mr. Duarte attempted personal service more than once through a process server

and also conducted an Internet search, Mr. Duarte did not, e.g., search any Bay Area city or

telephone directories for Mr. Freeland’s name. See Watts, 10 Cal. 4th at 749 n.5 (noting that “likely

sources of information” that “must be searched before resorting to service by publication” include

relatives, city and telephone directories, voter registries, and so forth); Rutter Group, Civ. Proc.

Before Trial § 4:255 (describing efforts that could be made to locate a defendant -- e.g., that

appropriate directories were checked with negative results (telephone books, etc.), that defendant’s

family and neighbors state they do not know his or her address, that defendant’s last known

employer and co-workers state they do not know defendant’s whereabouts, etc.). Moreover, Mr.

Duarte has not demonstrated that Mr. Freeland “cannot with reasonable diligence be served in

another manner specified in [Chapter 4, Article 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure],” Cal.

Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(a) -- for example, substitute service, see id. § 415.20, or service by mail. 

See id. § 415.30. Service by mail, in particular, should have been attempted since there was never

any confirmation that Mr. Freeland did not in fact live at the address where service was attempted. 

And if Mr. Freeland no longer lived at that address, then potentially a forwarding address could have

been obtained.

Finally, since time has passed -- although the Court acknowledges that this is through no

fault of Mr. Duarte -- the Court believes that a further and more current search for Mr. Freeland is

appropriate before resorting to the last resort of service by publication.

C. Mr. Mbuli

Mr. Duarte’s affidavit also states that he hired the professional process server Western

Messenger to serve summons on Mr. Mbuli. See Pl.’s App. ¶¶ 4-5. According to the Western

Case 3:05-cv-02780-EMC Document 102 Filed 03/07/08 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The District has confirmed that this was the last known address on file with the District for

Mr. Mbuli and his parents or guardians.

4

 Although Mr. Duarte discusses the January 10, 2006, attempt at service in his application, he

did not include as part of his motion any declaration from the process server who tried to effect service

on that day. Should Mr. Duarte decide to petition the Court a second time for service by publication

with respect to Mr. Mbuli, a declaration from the process server should be submitted or, if one cannot

be submitted, Mr. Duarte should explain why. 

5 The District has provided information to both the Court and Mr. Duarte showing that Mr.

Mbuli was not a minor as of the dates Mr. Duarte attempted service, and therefore service attempts on

his parents or guardians were not required. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.60.

5

Messenger server’s declaration of due diligence, the agency’s server made three attempts at personal

service on Mr. Mbuli in December,2005. See id., Ex. 1. The first two attempts were made at 9229

Olive Street in Oakland, California.3

 See id. On the second attempt, the server learned that the

Alvarez family had been living at the address for six months, and did not know Vuyo Mbuli. Id. 

The third attempt at service was made at 9729 Olive Street in Oakland, California. It is unclear from

Mr. Duarte’s application how he or the process server obtained this address. The process server

discovered the resident of that home had lived there for 20 years, and did not know Mr. Mbuli. See

id. 

Mr. Duarte then conducted a search for “Vuyo Mbuli.” on accurint.com on January 6, 2006.

See Pl.’s App. ¶ 10. The search produced two records: 9729 Olive Street in Oakland, and 608 O

Street, Apartment 16, Antioch, California, 94509. See id., Ex. 2. Mr. Duarte’s affidavit states that

the process server attempted personal service at the 608 O Street address on January 10, 2006, and

found that Mbuli did not live at that address.4 See id. ¶ 8. 

As above, although Mr. Duarte has demonstrated that he has taken several reasonable steps

to effect service on Mr. Mbuli, Mr. Duarte has failed to show that he “took those steps a reasonable

person who truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.”5 Donel, 87 Cal.

App. 3d at 333. While he hired process servers and performed an Internet search, he did not, e.g.,

attempt to locate Mr. Mubli through inquiry of city or telephone directories or through other means

of service specified by the California Code of Civil Procedure, in particular, service by mail. Even

though Mr. Duarte seems to have learned through the process servers that Mr. Mbuli did not live at

any of the three addresses Mr. Duarte learned about, an attempt at service by mail may have been

Case 3:05-cv-02780-EMC Document 102 Filed 03/07/08 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

fruitful as it may have resulted in obtaining a forwarding address, especially since the Alvarez

family reported that they had only lived at 9229 Olive Street for six months.

Finally, the same concern for the passage of time leads the Court to believe that a further and

more current search for Mr. Freeland is appropriate before resorting to the last resort of service by

publication. The Court therefore denies Mr. Duarte’s request for service by publication with respect

to Mr. Mbuli.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Mr. Duarte’s application for an order for

publication of summons. The denial is without prejudice. 

If Mr. Duarte decides to ask the Court a second time for service by publication, then he must

demonstrate that he has performed additional searches for the Student Defendants to demonstrate

reasonable diligence. Such a search might include, e.g., a search of city or telephone directories for

the Bay Area, attempting to contact the parents of the Student Defendants (presumably, the District

could supply the parents’ names and a search for the parents could be done), calling the telephone

numbers supplied by the District, and attempting service by mail. A new search through

accurint.com or another search engine may also be appropriate in light of the passage of time.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 11 and 80.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02780-EMC Document 102 Filed 03/07/08 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEMARIO L. FREELAND, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-2780 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Jose Duarte

5319 Broadway Terrace #103

Oakland, CA 94618

ALL OTHER COUNSEL SERVED VIA

ELECTRONIC FILING ("E-FILING")

Dated: March 7, 2008 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-02780-EMC Document 102 Filed 03/07/08 Page 7 of 7