Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00583/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00583-1/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 –

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPICE JAZZ LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 19-cv-583-BAS-WVG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

AUTHORIZE SERVICE BY 

PUBLICATION

[ECF No. 25]

v.

YOUNGEVITY INTERNATIONAL, 

INC. et al.,

Defendant.

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff Spice Jazz LLC’s filed a complaint against 

Defendants Youngevity International, Inc. and Bianca Reyne Djafar-Zade. (ECF No. 

1.) Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint against these two Defendants, 

which Defendant Youngevity moved to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 10, 13.) Ms. DjafarZade had not yet been served. The Court granted in part Youngevity’s motion to 

dismiss, granted Plaintiff leave to amend, and noted that Plaintiff must serve all 

named Defendants with its amended complaint. (ECF No. 19, at 19.) Plaintiff then 

filed a second amended complaint, again serving only Youngevity. The Court 

therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Djafar-Zade had not been served. In 

response, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to serve Djafar-Zade by 

publication. (ECF No. 25.) 

Case 3:19-cv-00583-BAS-DEB Document 27 Filed 01/06/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

The Court finds this Motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted 

and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, 

this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow service of process as permitted by

“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.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(e)(1). California permits service 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” Article 3 

of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 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). 

The “reasonable diligence” requirement “denotes a thorough, systematic 

investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or 

attorney.” Kott v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1126, 1137 (1996). “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). 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Reasonable Diligence

Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Zapendowski submits a declaration detailing the efforts 

undertaken to serve Djafar-Zade. (“Decl.,” ECF No. 25-2.) Djafar-Zade resided at 

an address in Vacaville, California while employed by Plaintiff, but counsel declares 

that Djafar-Zade now cannot be located at that address. (Id. ¶ 2.) Mr. Zapendowski 

Case 3:19-cv-00583-BAS-DEB Document 27 Filed 01/06/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

flew to Australia, where Djafar-Zade’s mother is believed to reside, and met with 

several witnesses. (Id. ¶ 4.) The witnesses told Zapendowski that Djafar-Zade’s last 

known address was the Vacaville address. (Id.) Plaintiff also paid for a “Skip Trace” 

service in an attempt to locate Djafar-Zade, but the service only turned up the same 

Vacaville address. (Id. ¶5.) Zapendowski also looked through social media and all 

available public records and could determine no location for Djafar-Zade except for 

her past Vacaville address. (Id. ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that it does not have enough information to determine whether 

Plaintiff has engaged in reasonable efforts to locate Djafar-Zade. With no further 

detail, Zapendowski declares that Djafar-Zade “could not be located” at the Vacaville 

address. It is unclear what this means—was service of process attempted at this 

address? If so, how many times and when? Did counsel or the process server speak 

to any neighbors to determine whether Djafar-Zade still lived at the Vacaville 

address? Further, has counsel attempted to ask anyone (namely, Djafar-Zade’s 

mother or former co-workers) where she currently lives? See Kott, 45 Cal. App. 4th 

at 1137 (providing that a plaintiff could inquire of the defendant’s “relatives, friends, 

and acquaintances” in an attempt to learn the defendant’s whereabouts). Without 

this information, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has exercised reasonable 

diligence to locate Djafar-Zade.

B. Claims Against Djafar-Zade

In addition to a showing of diligence, California law requires a party seeking 

service by publication to show that a “cause of action exists against the party upon 

whom service is to be made.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(a)(1). The proponent 

must offer “independent evidentiary support, in the form of a sworn statement of 

facts, for the existence of a cause of action against the defendant.” McNamara v. 

Sher, No. 11-CV-1344-BEN WVG, 2012 WL 760531, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012).

Plaintiff brings two causes of action against Djafar-Zade: fraud and breach of 

fiduciary duty. In Zapendowski’s declaration, he states that while in Australia, he 

Case 3:19-cv-00583-BAS-DEB Document 27 Filed 01/06/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

spoke to Plaintiff’s former Chief Operations Officer, Kylie Burnett, who confirmed 

the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations against Djafar-Zade. Burnett “was responsible for 

monitoring the work of Plaintiff’s entire core of key employees and confirmed that 

Ms. Djafar-Zade was on the Company payroll due to her mother’s influence, but did 

not actually perform any work for the company or even go into the office.” (Decl. ¶

7.) Counsel includes no further details. This one statement in counsel’s declaration

is not sufficient to show the existence of causes of action for fraud and breach of 

fiduciary duty against Djafar-Zade.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00583-BAS-DEB Document 27 Filed 01/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4