Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04118/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04118-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1131 E.R.I.S.A. Collection of Delinquent Trust Funds

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-04118-LB

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 Francisco Division

BAY AREA PAINTERS & TAPERS 

PENSION TRUST FUND, and its BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES; CHRIS 

CHRISTOPHERSON and MARIAN 

BOURBOULIS, TRUSTEES;

Plaintiffs,

v.

J&C FUENTES PAINTING & 

DECORATING CO. INC., a California 

Corporation; CF PAINTING & 

DECORATING, INC., a California 

Corporation; and DOES 1–10,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04118-LB

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 

SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

Re: ECF No. 10

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs sued J&C Fuentes Painting & Decorating Co., Inc.— and its successor employer 

CF Painting & Decorating, Inc. — for nonpayment of withdrawal liability, in violation of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), and (against J&C) for failure to 

provide the necessary information to enable the Plan to comply with ERISA’s requirements.

1

The 

 

1 Compl. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint 

citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

Case 3:18-cv-04118-WHO Document 11 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04118-LB 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

plaintiffs tried unsuccessfully to serve the defendants by service on the corporations’ registered 

agent, Carlos Fuentes, and by service directly at the listed business address.

2

The plaintiffs now 

ask to serve the defendants by service on the Secretary of State. The court finds the matter suitable 

for determination without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The court authorizes 

service (and also authorizes service by email). 

STATEMENT

The plaintiffs filed the complaint on July 10, 2018.

3

The plaintiffs confirmed the following 

about the defendants’ addresses. According to the records of the California Secretary of State, 

J&C Fuentes Painting & Decorating Co., Inc. has an “FTB suspended” status and its registered 

agent for service is Carlos Fuentes at 1487 156th Avenue, Oakland, California; it is no longer an 

ongoing business entity and is no longer at its listed business location at 1100 San Leandro Street, 

Oakland, California.4 CF Painting & Decorating, Inc. has an “active” status, and its agent for 

service of process is Carlos Fuentes at 1305 145th Avenue, San Leandro, CA.5Its executive and 

principal business offices are located at that address,6 which is a gated residential home.7The 

plaintiffs retained First Legal Investigations to serve the defendants.8First Legal sent Ellenor Rios 

to attempt service on Carlos Fuentes as agent for service of process for both corporate defendants

at 1305 145th Avenue in San Leandro.

9 Ms. Rios made seven unsuccessful attempts to serve Mr. 

Fuentes at various times of day between July 21 and July 29, 2018: (1) Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 

10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; (2) Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. to 7 p.m.; (3) Tuesday, July 24, 

 

2 Application – ECF No. 10 at 2–3.

3 Compl. – ECF No. 1.

4 Do Decl. – ECF No. 10-1 at 2 (¶ 3) & Ex. A – ECF No. 10-2 at 2.

5

Id. at 10-1 at 2 (¶ 3) & Ex. B – ECF No. 10-3 at 3. The declaration lists the address as 1305 145th 

Street in Oakland, but the record shows that it is San Leandro. Id.

6

Id.

7

Id. at 2 (¶ 5).

8

Id.

9

Id.

Case 3:18-cv-04118-WHO Document 11 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04118-LB 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

2018 at 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.; (4) Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; (5) Friday, 

July 27, 2018 at 7:12 p.m. to 9:12 p.m.; (6) Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 7:58 a.m.; and (7) Sunday, 

July 29, 2018, at 5:59 p.m.10 At each visit, Ms. Rios observed company cars with company logos 

(and personal cars) parked nearby. She knocked on the door of the residence, but there was no 

answer and no sounds, and she saw no one entering or exiting the residence.11 On her fifth attempt 

at service, the gate was locked (and she could not access the property), and she saw lights on 

inside the residence (unlike the fourth visit), and the company truck and another vehicle were no 

longer present.12 On her subsequent visits, the gate was still locked, and the vehicles were still 

missing.13

On August 6, 2018, the plaintiffs’ counsel sent a copy of the complaint, summons, application

for alternative service, and supporting documents by email to “carloscfpainting@gmail.com,” 

which was the email that Mr. Fuentes listed on an April 14, 2017 letter in his capacity as principal 

of CF Painting & Decorating.14 As of the filing date of August 8, 2018, Mr. Fuentes had not 

responded.15

ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), a plaintiff may serve an individual in the United 

States using any method permitted by the law of the state in which the district court is located or in 

which service is affected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). California law allows for five basic methods of 

service: (1) personal delivery to the party, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 415.10; (2) delivery to 

someone else at the party’s usual residence or place of business with mailing after (known as 

“substituted service”), see id. § 415.20; (3) service by mail with acknowledgement of receipt, see 

 

10 Rios Affidavit of Due Diligence– ECF No. 10-5 at 2–3.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 3.

13 Id.

14 Do Decl. – ECF No. 10-1 at 3 ¶ 6.

15 Id.

Case 3:18-cv-04118-WHO Document 11 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04118-LB 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

id. § 415.30; (4) service on persons outside the state by certified or registered mail with a return 

receipt requested, see id. § 415.40; and (5) service by publication, see id. § 415.50.

“While the California Code includes no explicit provision for service by email, it provides a 

broad framework for alternative means of service: ‘Where no provision is made in this chapter or 

other law for the service of summons, the court in which the action is pending may direct that 

summons be served in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to 

be served.’” Avoe Corp. v. Pace, No. C 11-3215 MEJ, 2011 WL 3904133, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

6, 2011) (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30). Courts have construed Section 413.30 as 

authorizing service by email where email service “is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to 

the party to be served,” particularly where there is evidence that the defendant is evading service. 

See, e.g., id.; Steve McCurry Studios, LLC v. Web2Web Mktg., Inc., No. C 13-80246 WHA, 2014 

WL 1877547, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2014); United Health Servs., Inc. v. Meyer, No. C 12-

6197 CW, 2013 WL 843698, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A) allows service of process on corporations and other 

business entities by any method permitted by the law of the state in which the district court is 

located or in which service is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A), 4(e)(1). Under California law, 

a court may authorize service on a corporation through the Secretary of State if (1) the 

corporation’s agent for service has resigned and has not been replaced, and (2) the plaintiff shows 

by affidavit that process “against [the] domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable 

diligence.” Cal. Corp. Code § 1702(a). The “reasonable diligence” requirement may be satisfied 

by showing that process cannot be served (i) on the corporation’s designated agent by hand under 

California Civil Code sections 415.10, 415.20(a), or 415.30(a), or (ii) on the corporation itself 

under Civil Code sections 416.10(a)–(c) or 416.20(a). Id.

The plaintiffs have satisfied the first requirement as to both J&C Fuentes Painting and 

Decorating, and CF Painting & Decorating by demonstrating that the corporations’ designated 

agent for service, Carlos Fuentes, cannot with reasonable diligence be found. In determining 

whether a plaintiff has exercised “reasonable diligence,” the court examines the affidavit to see 

whether the plaintiff “took those steps a reasonable person who truly desired to give notice would 

Case 3:18-cv-04118-WHO Document 11 Filed 08/29/18 Page 4 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04118-LB 5

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

have taken under the circumstances.” Donel, Inc. v. Badalian, 87 Cal. App. 3d 327, 333 (1978). 

The “reasonable diligence” requirement “denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry 

conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney.” Kott v. Super. Ct., 45 Cal. App. 4th 

1126, 1137 (1996).

Here, the plaintiffs took reasonable steps to determine the identity of the agent for service and 

his whereabouts, as well as the addresses at which the defendant corporations are registered. The 

plaintiffs then made seven in-person attempts to serve Mr. Fuentes, the registered agent for 

service, at the address designated for personal delivery of the process, and have also tried to reach 

him by email, all to no avail. The process server attempted service seven times, each at different 

times of the day and night, and the plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to reach Mr. Fuentes at his listed 

email address.16 These repeated attempts constitute reasonable diligence on the part of the 

plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs also satisfied the second requirement as to CF Painting & Decorating. The 145th 

Avenue address at which service was attempted is also the listed address for CF Painting & 

Decorating’s executive office and principal business office. As discussed, the repeated attempts to 

serve process at that address constitute reasonable diligence within the meaning of the California 

Corporations Code. J&C Fuentes Painting & Decorating Co., Inc. is no longer an on-going 

business concern, and so attempting service on the corporation itself is not possible.17

CONCLUSION

The court grants the plaintiffs leave to serve the defendants by service upon the Secretary of 

State of California. Service must comply with California Corporations Code § 1702(a), which 

provides that service may be made by delivering a copy of the process for each defendant to be 

served, together with the order authorizing such service, by hand to the Secretary of State, or to 

any person employed in the Secretary of State’s office in the capacity of assistant or deputy. Cal. 

 

16 Rios Affidavit of Due Diligence – ECF No. 10-1 at 3–4; Do Decl. – ECF No. 10-1 at 3 ¶ 6.

17 Do Decl. – ECF No. 10-1 at 2 ¶ 2.

Case 3:18-cv-04118-WHO Document 11 Filed 08/29/18 Page 5 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-04118-LB 6

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

Corp. Code. § 1702(a). The court also directs the plaintiffs to again make service by email, using 

carloscfpainting@gmail.com.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2018

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04118-WHO Document 11 Filed 08/29/18 Page 6 of 6