Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00541/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00541-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

07cv541

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIEWTECH, INCORPORATED, a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKYTECH USA, INC., a California

corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv541-L(NLS)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR SUBSTITUTE SERVICE

On April 23, 2007 Plaintiff filed an Application for Substitute Service Under California

Corp. Code § 1702 and Assessing Costs and Fees. Plaintiff claims that despite diligent efforts, it

has been unable to serve Defendant. For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff’s application is

denied.

The complaint in this trademark infringement action was filed on March 23, 2007. 

Exactly one month later, Plaintiff filed the instant application. Plaintiff attempted personal

service on the agent for service of process. The address, which Plaintiff has confirmed as the

correct address for the agent, is a residence. On the first attempt at personal service no one

answered, and on the second attempt, the person who answered the door stated that the agent

was not there. Plaintiff inquired with Defendant’s counsel whether he would accept service,

however, no response has been forthcoming. Plaintiff also unsuccessfully attempted to contact

Defendant and its agent via certified mail and email. 

Case 3:07-cv-00541-L-NLS Document 4 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 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

2 07cv541

In pertinent part, section 1702(a) provides as follows:

[I]f the agent designated cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address

designated for personally delivering the process... and it is shown by affidavit to

the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be

served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner

provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or subdivision (a) of

Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure or upon the corporation in the

manner provided in subdivision (a), (b) or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a)

of 416.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the

service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of

State . . ..

Therefore, “as a condition precedent to the issuance of an order for such substituted service” a

plaintiff’s affidavit must establish that “the corporation cannot be served with the exercise of due

diligence in any other manner provided by law.” Batte v. Bandy, 165 Cal. App. 2d 527, 535

(1958).

In addition to delivery to the designated agent under subdivision (a), California Code of

Civil Procedure Section 416.10 also provides under subdivision (b) that a summons may be

served on a corporation by any of the following methods: 

To the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice

president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a

controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by

the corporation to receive service of process.

An affidavit failing to demonstrate that a diligent search for officers as well as agents was

performed is inadequate. Batte, 165 Cal. App. 2d at 536. Until Plaintiff can show it attempted

to comply with section 416.10 but nevertheless could not effect service, it is not appropriate “to

seek the assistance of the court and the Secretary of State in obtaining jurisdiction.” See Gibble

v. Car-Lene Research, Inc., 67 Cal. App. 4th 295, 312 (1998). 

In Batte, the court found an affidavit insufficient because it failed “to disclose that any

effort was made to locate any [corporate] officer within the state.” Batte, 165 Cal. App. 2d at

535-536. In the instant case, Plaintiff’s affidavit is insufficient for the same reason. It shows his

attempts to serve consisted of: attempted service at address listed for Defendant’s principal place

of business; two attempts to locate the designated agent at his address; phone and email

communication with Defendant’s counsel; and unsuccessful attempts to Defendant and agent via

Case 3:07-cv-00541-L-NLS Document 4 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 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

3 07cv541

certified mail. There is no indication Plaintiff has made any attempt to locate officers of the

corporation. Accordingly, although Plaintiff has made some good faith attempts to serve the

corporation’s designated agent, it has failed to show “that the corporation cannot be served with

the exercise of due diligence in any other manner provided by law.” Batte, 165 Cal. App. 2d at

535. 

Plaintiff’s Application for Substitute Service is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to

refiling it if necessary after he has complied with the due diligence requirement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00541-L-NLS Document 4 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 3