Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02362/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02362-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DANIEL PATRICK GUERIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH NICOLO ARICO,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-02362-VKD 

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE RENEWED MOTION 

FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION; 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST TO 

APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 16

Asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, plaintiff Daniel Guerin sues for 

personal injuries he claims he suffered in a car accident involving defendant Joseph Arico. The 

Court previously granted Mr. Guerin’s request for a 60-day extension of time to complete service 

of process on Mr. Arico, but denied without prejudice his motion for leave to serve Mr. Arico by 

publication. The Court concluded that Mr. Guerin failed to show by affidavit reasonable diligence 

in attempts to serve Mr. Arico or that a cause of action exists against him. Dkt. No. 10.

Mr. Guerin now renews his motion for leave to serve Mr. Arico by publication, stating that 

further attempts to serve Mr. Arico have been unsuccessful. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the 

matter was deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Dkt. No. 14. For the 

reasons to be discussed, the Court denies without prejudice the motion for leave to serve Mr. 

Arico by publication.

Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service upon an 

individual may be made in any judicial district of the United States 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.” California law provides for several means of 

Case 5:18-cv-02362-VKD Document 18 Filed 10/24/18 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

effecting service upon a defendant. Service of the complaint and summons may be accomplished 

by (1) personal delivery to the party, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.10, (2) delivery to someone at the 

party’s usual residence or place of business, followed by a mailing, id. § 415.20, (3) mail with an 

acknowledgement of receipt, id. § 415.30, (4) mail on persons outside California, id. § 415.40, and 

(5) publication, id. § 415.50.

In California, service by publication is permitted (1) “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” and, as relevant here, (2) “[a] cause of action 

exists against the party upon whom service is to be made . . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 

§ 415.50(a)(1). “The question is simply whether [the plaintiff] took those steps which 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). Nevertheless, because service by 

publication is “the least likely to succeed in notifying the defendant of an action against him,” it is 

to be used “‘only as a last resort.’” Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Ham, 

216 Cal. App.4th 330, 337-38 (2013) (quoting Watts v. Crawford, 10 Cal.4th 743, 749 n.5 (1995)). 

“Accordingly, it can require exhaustive attempts to locate the defendant before this method may 

be employed.” Id. at 338. “In this context, ‘[t]he term ‘reasonable diligence’ denotes a thorough, 

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

attorney.’” Id. (quoting Watts, 10 Cal.4th at 749 n.5). “In each case where the question here 

presented is under review the particular facts will control. No single formula nor mode of search 

can be said to constitute due diligence in every case.” Donel, Inc., 87 Cal. App.3d at 333.

Mr. Guerin’s counsel, David Tabb, has submitted an affidavit in which he avers that he 

conducted inquiries using the LexisNexis Nationwide Person database, and his search results 

indicate that Mr. Arico resides at an address in San Francisco, California and that he has lived 

there since 2016. Dkt. No. 11 at 4-5, 13.1 Mr. Tabb further states that shortly after filing the 

complaint, his office mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to Mr. Arico, with a request for 

 

1 All pin cites are to the page number that appears in the ECF header on Mr. Guerin’s court filings.

Case 5:18-cv-02362-VKD Document 18 Filed 10/24/18 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

waiver of service, but has received no response. Id. at 4. Additionally, the record presented 

indicates that the process server made a number of attempts at personal service between June 2 

and June 27, 2018 and again between September 13 and 16, 2018, including ringing the bell for a 

neighboring unit. However, there was no response. Id. at 7-10. Further, Mr. Tabb says that he 

contacted the attorney retained by Mr. Arico’s insurance company to represent Mr. Arico,

provided her with a courtesy copy of the complaint and summons, and asked if she would accept 

service of process on behalf of Mr. Arico. The attorney advised that she was not authorized to do 

so. Id. at 5. On this record, and although service by publication is a method of last resort, the 

Court is satisfied that Mr. Guerin’s efforts to locate and serve Mr. Arico have been reasonable and 

sufficient. See Cummings v. Brantley Hale, No. 15-cv-04723-JCS, 2016 WL 4762208, at *2 

(N.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2016) (“While it is conceivable that [plaintiff] could do more . . . the standard 

requires reasonable diligence, not exhaustive efforts to leave no stone unturned . . .”).

Nevertheless, Mr. Guerin has not satisfied the second prong of the requirement for service 

by publication. Specifically, he has not offered “independent evidentiary support, in the form of a 

sworn statement of facts, for the existence of a cause of action against the defendant,” Cummings, 

2016 WL 4762208 at *2 (citation omitted), and Mr. Tabb’s affidavit is insufficient. Mr. Tabb 

attests that “[a] cause of action exists against defendant in respect to whom the service of 

summons is to be made as shown by the verified complaint on file in this action.” Dkt. No. 11 at 

4. The complaint, however, is not verified; it is simply signed by counsel. Dkt. No. 1. Moreover, 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50 “on its face permits [the required] showing to be 

made only by affidavit.” Harris v. Cavasso, 68 Cal. App.3d 723, 726 (1977) (setting aside a 

judgment where service by publication was based on facts presented in a verified complaint, rather 

than in an affidavit). Further, “[r]eference to another document for the statement of facts is 

insufficient because the affidavit itself must include the statement of facts.” Castillo-Antonio v. 

Azurdia, No. C13-05709 DMR, 2014 WL 4060219, at *2 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2014); see also 

Cummings, 2016 WL 4762208 at *3 (denying the plaintiff’s request for service by publication 

because counsel’s submitted statement “d[id] not purport to be an affidavit, [was] not sworn, and 

d[id] not demonstrate counsel’s personal knowledge of the facts at issue.”).

Case 5:18-cv-02362-VKD Document 18 Filed 10/24/18 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

Based on the foregoing, Mr. Guerin’s motion for service by publication is denied without 

prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion properly supported by an affidavit of facts evincing a 

cause of action against Mr. Arico. To the extent Mr. Guerin intends to renew his motion for 

service by publication, his motion must be filed no later than November 7, 2018. The time for 

service having expired, the Court will give plaintiff additional time through November 30, 2018

to complete service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In view of this extension, the Court 

continues the Initial Case Management Conference, currently set for October 30, 2018, to 

December 18, 2018, 1:30 p.m.,

2 with a Case Management Statement to be filed no later than 

December 11, 2018. All other related deadlines set in the Court’s Order Setting Initial Case 

Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. No. 3) are adjusted accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2 Mr. Guerin’s request to appear by telephone on October 30, 2018 (Dkt. No. 16) is denied as 

moot.

Case 5:18-cv-02362-VKD Document 18 Filed 10/24/18 Page 4 of 4