Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05676/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05676-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page

number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.

C 11-05676 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

ALAMEDA COUNTY ELECTRICAL

INDUSTRY SERVICE CORPORATION, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RONALD WALTER STUWARD,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 11-05676 LB

ORDER RE REQUEST TO SERVE BY

PUBLICATION

[ECF No. 19]

In this ERISA action, Plaintiffs – collective bargaining trust funds and the trustee – request the

court reconsider its previous orders denying Plaintiffs permission to serve Defendant Ronald

Stuward by publication. ECF No. 19 at 1.1

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant Ronald Walter Stuward, doing business as Digital

Electric Enterprises, on November 23, 2011. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs originally

moved for permission to serve Stuward by publication on March 23, 2012. ECF No. 7. During an

April 13, 2012 telephonic status hearing in the matter, the court suggested additional steps that the

parties might take to effect service. See Order, ECF No. 11 at 3. On April 16, 2012, the court

Case 3:11-cv-05676-RS Document 20 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 5
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 court finds this suitable for determination without a hearing under Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b).

C 11-05676 LB

ORDER 2

denied Plaintiffs’ request without prejudice and suggested they file a renewed motion detailing their

further efforts at serving Stuward. On July 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed another motion requesting

permission to serve Stuward by publication. See ECF No. 14. The court denied Plaintiffs’ second

motion because Plaintiffs had not tried to serve Stuward at all of the possible addresses and because

the court could not resolve inconsistencies in Plaintiffs’ account of their service attempts. See

Order, ECF No. 15.

On October 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a case management conference statement asking the court

to reconsider its previous ruling. See ECF No. 17 at 6. Plaintiffs explained that they had attempted

to serve Stuward at the remaining possible addresses and they reconciled the inconsistencies in their

previous filings. Id. The court construed Plaintiffs’ case management conference statement as a

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7-9(a), which the court

granted. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiffs then filed the pending motion on December 5, 2012.2

 See

Mem. of P. & A. Supp. Mot. for Reconsideration (“Motion”), ECF No. 19-1.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider its prior orders denying leave to serve by publication and

that it now permit such service. They explain that since the court’s July 30, 2012 order, they

attempted to service at several previously unknown potential addresses for Stuward and have now

demonstrated reasonable diligence. The court agrees and grants both requests.

I. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The court’s previous denials were without prejudice to renewal of the request following more

efforts to serve. In any event, a district court can “reconsider” non-final judgments pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and the court’s “inherent power rooted firmly in the common

law” to “rescind an interlocutory order over which it has jurisdiction.” City of Los Angeles v. Santa

Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). Under this District’s Civil Local Rules,

plaintiffs must seek permission from the court prior to filing a motion for reconsideration. N.D. Cal.

Case 3:11-cv-05676-RS Document 20 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 5
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

C 11-05676 LB

ORDER 3

Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). In seeking permission from the court, plaintiffs must show that (1) at the time of

the motion, a material difference in fact or law exists that was not previously presented to the court,

(2) there has been an emergence of new material facts or a change in law since the court issued the

order, or (3) there was a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments” that were presented to it. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Reconsideration is appropriate

only when (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the underlying decision

was in clear error or manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. See

School Dis. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

In its July 30 Order, the court listed three possible addresses for Stuward that the court located

through a free on-line search and pointed out inconsistencies in Plaintiffs’ account of their attempts

to serve Stuward. See Order, ECF No. 15 at 2. The court stated that “[i]f Plaintiffs can reconcile

their previous statements and show that they have attempted service at the listed addresses (or

explain why those addresses are inaccurate) the court will reconsider its ruling.” Id. at 3.

In the pending motion, Plaintiffs explain that they have complied with the court’s order and they

characterize the court-provided addresses as newly discovered evidence. See Mot., ECF No. 19-1 at

7-8. The court agrees and reconsiders its previous ruling. 

II. REQUEST TO SERVE BY PUBLICATION

The court next considers whether to permit Plaintiffs to serve Stuward by publication. Plaintiffs

argue that they have demonstrated reasonable diligence in effecting service. See id. at 8-9.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), a plaintiff may serve an individual defendant using

any method permitted by the law of the state in which the district court is located or in which service

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

where the court determines that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in

another manner. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(a). 

In determining whether a plaintiff has exercised “reasonable diligence,” the court examines 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). And, because of due process concerns, service by

Case 3:11-cv-05676-RS Document 20 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 5
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

C 11-05676 LB

ORDER 4

publication should be allowed “only as a last resort.” Id. 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. Id.

Here, Plaintiffs explain that they have attempted to locate Stuward through internet searches,

skip traces, and a post office inquiry. See Tosdal Decl., ECF No. 19-2 at 1-2 (quoting Thomas

Decl., ECF No. 14-1 at 1-3; Thomas Decl., ECF No. 8 at 1-2). Plaintiffs found twelve possible

addresses for Stuward, attempted to serve him at each address, but were uniformly unsuccessful. 

See id. at 2-5; id. at Exs. A-K, ECF No. 19-2 at 6-32. Plaintiffs made repeated attempts to locate

Stuward at many of the addresses discovered and found evidence suggesting that Stuward would not

be located at the others. See id. 

In this district, Judge Lloyd granted permission where the plaintiff has conducted an internet

WHOIS search, hired a private investigator, and subpoenaed several internet companies in an effort

to discover defendants’ true identities. Combs v. Doe, No. C10-01120 HRL, 2010 WL 4065630, at

*1-*2 (N.D. Cal. Oct.15, 2010). On the other hand, Judge Chen denied permission where the

plaintiff attempted personal service more than once through a process server and also conducted

Internet searches (using Lexis’s accurint.com) but did not, e.g., search any Bay Area city telephone

directories for the defendants’ names nor attempt service by mail. Duarte v. Freeland, No.

C-05-2780 EMC, 2008 WL 683427, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2008).

The court is now satisfied that Plaintiffs have exercised reasonable diligence and GRANTS their

request to serve by publication. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs may serve Defendant Ronald Walter Stuward by publication pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), California Code of Civil Procedure, section 415.50, and California

Government Code, section 6064 by publishing the summons in a newspaper of general circulation at

least once per week for four successive weeks, with at least five days intervening between the

respective publication dates. Service by publication shall be deemed complete after the twentieth

day following the first day of publication. The court vacates the hearing set for January 17, 2013.

This disposes of ECF No. 19 .

Case 3:11-cv-05676-RS Document 20 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 5
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

C 11-05676 LB

ORDER 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-05676-RS Document 20 Filed 01/07/13 Page 5 of 5