Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02454/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02454-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY GILLIAM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MA ELIZA CANGGAS GILLIAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Currently before 

the court is plaintiff’s second motion for service by publication upon defendant Ma Eliza Canggas 

Gilliam (“Defendant Canggas”). ECF No. 15. 

Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 20, 2014. ECF No. 1. Since plaintiff filed his 

complaint every named defendant but Ma Eliza Canggas Gilliam (“Defendant Canggas”) has 

filed an answer. ECF Nos. 4 & 14. On December 29, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion requesting 

the court’s permission to serve Defendant Canggas by publication in accordance with California 

Civil Procedural Code § 415.50. ECF No. 8. The court denied plaintiff’s motion on January 7, 

2015, finding that plaintiff had not established that Defendant Canggas is a person within the 

United States. ECF No. 10. On January 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a second motion to serve 

Defendant Canggas by publication, alleging that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a 

plaintiff to serve a foreign defendant in accordance with the rules of court of the country where 

Case 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

that defendant resides. ECF No. 15 at 11. Based on this understanding of the Federal Rules 

plaintiff argues that the court should grant his motion because Defendant Canggas lives in the 

Philippines, where service by publication is allowed. Id. 

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the Federal Rules do not authorize service according to 

any foreign country’s rules of court. As the court explained in its December 29, 2014, order the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow service upon individuals located in a foreign country by 

an “internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as 

those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial 

Documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1) (emphasis added). “[I]f there is no internationally agreed 

means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means,” then an 

individual in a foreign country may be served “by [any] method that is reasonably calculated to 

give notice.” Id. at 4(f)(2). Plaintiff has not identified what international agreements, if any, 

apply to service by a party in the United States upon an individual in the Philippines. Nor has 

plaintiff demonstrated his attempt to comply with the means of service authorized by the Hague 

Convention, or any other international agreement. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY DENIES plaintiff’s motion for service by 

publication (ECF No. 15) without prejudice. 

DATED: January 21, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 2