Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04735/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04735-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HUEBNER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RADARIS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04735-VC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Huebner's administrative motion for alternative service is denied without prejudice.

Huebner asks the Court to allow him to serve Radaris, LLC and Edgar Lopin through the

attorneys from the Boston Law Group who initially contacted Huebner's attorney and asked for an 

extension of the deadline to respond to the complaint. Huebner argues that service on the 

attorneys is appropriate for two reasons. First, Huebner claims that the Boston Law Group 

attorneys were impliedly authorized to accept service on behalf of Radaris, LLC and Lopin. This 

is incorrect. "If agency to accept service of process is to be implied, it must be implied from all 

the circumstances accompanying the attorney's appointment which indicate the extent of authority 

the client intended to confer." In re Focus Media Inc., 387 F,3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2004)

(internal citation omitted). Here, all the Boston Law Group attorneys did was reach out to 

Huebner's attorney by email, indicate they were in the process of being engaged to represent the 

defendants, ask for an extension to respond to the complaint, and suggest that the defendants were 

open to mediation. When asked in a later email if they would accept service on behalf of the 

defendants, the Boston Law Group attorneys explicitly said they were not authorized to accept 

service, and in fact indicated that they had not been retained to represent the defendants in this suit 

and were no longer in touch with them. The actions by the Boston Law Group attorneys do not 

indicate they had implied authorization to accept service on behalf of Radaris, LLC and Lopin.

Case 3:14-cv-04735-VC Document 24 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Second, in addition to arguing that the Boston Law Group attorneys had implied consent to 

receive service, Huebner also argues he should be permitted to serve the defendants through those 

attorneys under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(f)(3). But this rule only applies to serving an individual in a 

foreign country, and Huebner has not shown that Lopin is in a foreign country. Huebner has 

merely indicated that Lopin has a Cyprus address in addition to a Massachusetts address. And

even if Huebner was in a foreign country, it would still be inappropriate to allow service on the 

Boston Law Group attorneys for the reasons identified above. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 

798, 805 (9th Cir. 2004) ("the decision whether to allow alternative methods of serving process 

under Rule 4(f)(3) is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.").

Finally, Huebner argues that if the Court does not allow service through the Boston Law

Group attorneys, the Court should allow service by publication in The Boston Globe. But service 

by publication should be used only as a last resort and only after the plaintiff has shown 

exhaustive attempts to locate the defendant. See, e.g., Johnson v. Vuong, 2014 WL 3853430, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2014) (allowing service of process through publication after the plaintiff made 

ten unsuccessful attempts to serve the defendant at the defendant's only known address); Watts v. 

Crawford, 10 Cal.4th 743, 749 n. 5, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 896 P.2d 807 (1995). Here, it is not clear 

that Huebner has made the necessary effort to serve Lopin and Radaris, LLC such that it should be 

allowed to serve them via publication. 

Accordingly, Huebner's motion for alternative service is denied without prejudice to 

refiling once it has undergone more exhaustive attempts to appropriately serve Lopin and Radaris, 

LLC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04735-VC Document 24 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 2