Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-08103/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-08103-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECIL EUGENE SHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD L. BRAZELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-08103-SVK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 17-1

Before the Court is Plaintiff Cecil Eugene Shaw’s motion for permission to serve Richard 

L. Brazell and Joan K. Brazell (collectively, “Brazell Defendants”) by publication. Dkt. 17, 17-1. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this matter suitable for decision without oral 

argument. After reviewing the motion and the relevant law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to permit service by publication. 

I. BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint alleging violations of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act against RJC 

Spirits, Inc. and the Brazell Defendants. Dkt. 1. On December 12, 2019, the Court issued a 

summons to all Defendants. Dkt. 6. Defendant RJC Spirits, Inc. was served on January 5, 2020 

(Dkt. 9) and on February 6, 2020, it filed an answer (Dkt. 10). On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff 

filed a motion requesting a sixty-day extension to complete service on the Brazell Defendants,

representing that “due to the discovery of new information, Plaintiff anticipates that service upon 

Defendants can be completed within shortly (sic).” Dkt. 11 at 2. The Court granted a thirty-day 

extension to March 12, 2020. Dkt. 15. On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. 

Dkts. 17, 17-1.

////

Case 5:19-cv-08103-SVK Document 18 Filed 03/25/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. APPLICABLE LAW

In federal court, service of a complaint is governed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Rule 4(e)(1) permits service by “following 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 Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50

provides that “[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 . . . [a] cause of 

action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.50. 

Service by publication should be allowed only “as a last resort.” Donel, Inc. v. Badalian, 87 Cal. 

App. 3d 327, 333 (1978). 

III. DISCUSSION

Under this Court’s General Order governing ADA access litigation (“General Order 

(“G.O.”) 56”), a Plaintiff must complete service on all defendants “promptly” and in accordance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). G.O. 56 ¶ 1. In his motion to permit service by 

publication, Plaintiff invokes California law governing service of a summons and complaint. 

Dkt. 17-1 at 4-5. California permits service by publication if two factors are met: (1) if upon 

affidavit, it appears that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in 

another manner; and (2) that a cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be 

made. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.50(a). If service by publication is appropriate, the order permitting 

publication must meet certain requirements, including that “[t]he court shall order the summons to 

be published in a named newspaper, published in this state, that is most likely to give actual notice 

to the party to be served.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.50(b).

“In determining whether a plaintiff has exercised ‘reasonable diligence,’ the [C]ourt 

examines the affidavit to see whether the plaintiff ‘took those steps a reasonable person who truly 

desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.’” Hernandez v. Srija, Inc., No. 

19-cv-01813-LB, 2019 WL 4417589, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2019) (quoting Donel, 87 Cal. 

App. 3d at 333). “The ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement ‘denotes a thorough, systematic 

Case 5:19-cv-08103-SVK Document 18 Filed 03/25/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Hernandez, 2019 WL 4417589, at *2 (quoting Kott v. Super. Ct., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1126, 1137 

(1996)). Thus, “[b]efore 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.” Hernandez, 2019 WL 

4417589, at *2 (quoting Watts v. Crawford, 10 Cal. 4th 743, 749 n.5 (1995)).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Brazell Defendants “cannot with 

reasonable diligence be served in another manner,” as required by § 415.50(a), because Plaintiff’s 

attempts at service have not been exhaustive. Plaintiff’s counsel attests that his office used the 

TransUnion/TLO XP search engine and the Lawyer’s Title property database search engine to 

locate addresses for the Brazell Defendants. Dkt. 17-2 ¶ 5-6. This search revealed six mailing 

addresses for the Brazell Defendants: 2325 or 2327 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050; 2715 

Bayside Walk, San Diego, CA 92109; 1223 Lanny Ln, Olympic Valley, CA 96146; P.O. Box 

926, Los Gatos, CA 95031; and 18265 Montevina Rd, Los Gatos, CA 95033. Id. A process 

server hired by Plaintiff made seven attempts, over a period of approximately two weeks in 

December 2019 and January 2020, to serve the Brazell Defendants at the address on Montevina 

Road only. Dkt. 17-2 ¶ 8; Dkt. 17-4. On January 20, 2020, an office assistant mailed Notices of 

Acknowledgment to “Defendant Palm 13” at the addresses listed above.1 Dkt. 17-2 ¶ 9; Dkt. 17-5; 

Dkt. 17-6 ¶ 2. On February 3, 2020, an office assistant called seven phone numbers, four of which 

were disconnected. Dkt. 17-2 ¶ 11; Dkt. 17-6 ¶ 3. The office assistant left voicemails at the 

remaining three numbers. Dkt. 17-6 ¶ 3. On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed the 

Brazell Defendants’ attorney asking if he would accept service. Dkt. 17-2 ¶ 12; Dkt. 17-2 at 2. 

Despite Plaintiff’s attempts to serve the Brazell Defendants, it is not clear that he has 

exhausted the myriad of other avenues available for locating the Brazell Defendants. 

Additionally, in the time since the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to 

serve the Brazell Defendants, Plaintiff has only emailed the Brazell Defendants’ attorney once. 

1 As “Palm 13” is not a defendant in this case, the Court will ignore the Notices of 

Acknowledgment. Dkt. 17-5.

Case 5:19-cv-08103-SVK Document 18 Filed 03/25/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. 17-2 ¶ 12; Dkt. 17-7 at 2. No other efforts to complete service have been undertaken, and 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any other attempts to identify other locations where the Brazell 

Defendants may be found. Plaintiff may wish to consider if there are other avenues by which he 

may be able to serve the Brazell Defendants, including contacting the Brazell Defendants’

relatives, friends, or neighbors; emailing the Brazell Defendants and/or their attorney; attempting 

to locate the Brazell Defendants at the property in question in this lawsuit; and contacting codefendant RJC Spirits, Inc. for the Brazell Defendants’ contact information. See Lucero v. IRA 

Services, Inc., 18-cv-5395-LB, 2019 WL 2123576, at * 3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2019). 

In addition to Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting to locate 

the Brazell Defendants, Plaintiff has failed to submit facts showing that publication in “El 

Observador” is “most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served,” as required under 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50. Neither Plaintiff’s motion nor counsel’s affidavit 

mention “El Observador.” See Dkts. 17-1, 17-2. Only in Plaintiff’s “Proposed Order” is “El 

Observador” mentioned, and Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that “El Observador” is “a 

newspaper of general circulation” is insufficient to show that the Brazell Defendants are likely to 

receive actual notice of this action by publication in that newspaper. Dkt. 17-3. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for permission to 

serve the Brazell Defendants by publication. The Court does, however, grant Plaintiff a further 

extension to May 11, 2020 to either complete service on the Brazell Defendants to or renew his 

motion with additional evidentiary support. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-08103-SVK Document 18 Filed 03/25/20 Page 4 of 4