Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03809/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03809-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KARIN L ANDERSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03809-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

SERVE SUMMONS UPON 

DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION AND 

DENYING AWARD OF COSTS FOR 

REFUSAL TO WAIVE SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 16

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Scott Felix and Patricia Shuey filed a Motion for Leave to Serve the Summons 

upon Defendant by Publication and Award of Costs for Refusal to Waive Service (“Motion”). In 

the Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to allow service upon Defendant Karin Anderson by 

publication, pointing to evidence that due to Defendant’s intentional evasion of service, they have 

been unable to serve Defendant despite extensive efforts. Plaintiffs further request that the Court 

award costs incurred as a result of Defendant’s refusal to waive service. A hearing on the Motion 

was held on February 6, 2015. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part.

II. BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this matter bringing claims including 

fraud, constructive fraud, and conversion. The Complaint alleges that Defendant—Patricia’s 

sister—agreed to manage Patricia’s real property, finances, and family trust for Plaintiffs’ benefit, 

but later sold Patricia’s house in California $200,000 under market value and used the trust’s 

funds to buy a house in Maryland, near where Defendant lived—without discussing any of these 

Case 4:14-cv-03809-HSG Document 27 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 6
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

decisions with Patricia first. See Complaint at 3-4. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that on September 19, 2014, “after investigation into the 

whereabouts of defendant,” the summons and complaint were provided to One Legal Online Court 

Services (“One Legal”) for personal service upon Defendant. See Decl. of Richard Sax in Supp. of 

Motion for Leave to Serve the Summons upon Defendant by Publication and Award of Costs for 

Refusal to Waive Service ¶ 3 (“Sax Decl.”). 

In a Declaration of Diligence, One Legal’s Sarah Decker enumerates ten separate attempts 

to serve Defendant at 7007 Woodland Avenue in Tahoma, Maryland—the address listed as 

Defendant’s “Home” in the Declaration of Diligence. See Sax Decl., Ex. 1. In particular, Decker 

states that on September 28, 2014, she “spoke with a woman who states her name is ‘Patty’ [and 

that Defendant] was not home,” but “server believes the lady is lying and this was defendant,” and 

the lady refused to accept the papers. See id. Decker states that later, on October 27, 2014, she 

“received [a] call from Karin Anderson [who] confirmed that she resides at address” and that 

“someone tried to serve her papers from CA one time and she told them it wasn’t her.” See id. 

According to Decker, in that same conversation, “Ms. Anderson also informed server that she goes 

to the ‘Senior Funhouse’ on Mon/Wed/Fri and that she will call to set up meeting.” See id. 

Decker’s declaration, signed November 4, 2014, does not refer to any other phone calls with 

Defendant. See id. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel states that on November 18, 2014, he received a phone call from an 

attorney with a Maryland office address who said that he represented Karin Anderson and 

requested that Mr. Sax provide him with the summons and complaint in this action. See Sax Decl. 

¶ 6. On November 19, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed the attorney the summons and complaint 

in this action as well as a state court action and asked how Defendant wanted to proceed. See Sax 

Decl., Ex. 2 (November 19, 2014, Email to Sean R. Day). The Court’s record contains no response 

to the email. 

According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, on December 9, 2014, he received a letter from an 

attorney with a San Francisco office address stating that her office represents Defendant. See Sax 

Decl. ¶ 8. On December 12, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel mailed the San Francisco attorney—Jean L. 

Case 4:14-cv-03809-HSG Document 27 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 6
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

Bertrand—the pleadings for this action as well as a state court action, a notice and 

acknowledgment of receipt under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30, and a request to waive service. 

See Sax Decl., Ex. 3 (December 12, 2014, Letter to Jean L. Bertrand). On December 19, 2014, 

Jean L. Bertrand faxed Plaintiffs’ counsel a letter confirming receipt of the mailed items and 

stating, “We are not authorized to accept service on behalf of Karin Anderson.” See Sax Decl., Ex. 

4 (December 19, 2014, Bertrand’s Faxed Letter to Mr. Sax). The letter from Bertrand carried the 

notation “cc via email: ...Karin Anderson.” See id.

III. REQUEST FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

A. Legal Standard

Service upon an individual defendant in a judicial district of the United States may be 

effected pursuant to the state law where the district court is located or where service is made. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Under California law, service by publication is permissible when:

(a) 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 . . .

(1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made or 

he or she is necessary or proper party to the action.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50. The key inquiry for the Court is whether Defendant cannot with 

“reasonable diligence” be served by another available method. Id. 

To determine whether a plaintiff has exercised “reasonable diligence,” a court must 

examine the affidavit required by the statute to see whether the plaintiff took steps that “a 

reasonable person who truly desired to give notice would have taken.” Donel, Inc. v. Badalian, 87 

Cal. App. 3d 327, 333 (1978). Reasonable diligence denotes a “thorough systematic investigation 

and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney.” Watts v. Crawford, 10 

Cal. 4th 743, 749 n.5 (1995). In Aevoe Corp. v. Pace, No. C 11-3215 MEJ, 2011 WL 3904133, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011), the court found that service by publication was appropriate where 

plaintiff (1) hired a private investigator to track down defendant, (2) attempted personal service 

and service by mail to defendant’s two addresses, (3) emailed and called defendant, which did not 

lead to a response. 

Case 4:14-cv-03809-HSG Document 27 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 6
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

Because of due process concerns, service by publication must be allowed “only as a last 

resort.” Donel, 87 Cal. App. 3d at 332. That a plaintiff has taken one or a few reasonable steps 

does not necessarily mean that “all myriad of other avenues” have been properly exhausted to 

warrant service by publication. Id. at 333. Before allowing a plaintiff to resort to service by 

publication, the courts must require her to show “exhaustive” attempts to locate the defendant.

Watts, 10 Cal. 4th at 749 (internal citations omitted). In Castillo-Antonio v. Azurdia, No. C-13-

05709 DMR, 2014 WL 7206609, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2014), plaintiff attempted personal 

service at defendant’s believed address four times, attempted service by mail, hired a private 

investigator who made “indirect contact” with defendant confirming the address, and retained a 

process server who made four more attempts at service, but the court denied service by publication 

in part because the term “indirect contact” was too vague and plaintiff did not investigate

defendant’s known business address, email defendant, or contact his friends, family, or codefendant. 

However, when there is evidence that a defendant is evading service, courts are more 

willing to allow alternative methods such as service by publication. See Miller v. Superior Court 

In & For Los Angeles Cnty., 195 Cal. App. 2d 779, 786 (1961) (“A person who deliberately 

conceals himself to evade service of process is scarcely in a position to complain over much of 

unfairness in substitutive methods of notification [namely service by publication] enacted by the 

Legislature to cope with such situations”). In Steve McCurry Studios, LLC v. Web2Web Mktg., 

Inc., No. C 13-80246 WHA, 2014 WL 1877547, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2014), the court allowed 

service of defendant by email as well as publication if needed, where defendant demonstrated a 

pattern of evading service: despite process server’s eight attempts to serve defendant at his lastknown address, plaintiff counsel’s email to defendant asking to set up a meeting, and defendant’s 

informal agreements to meet with plaintiff’s counsel, defendant never showed up and stopped 

responding to emails.

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiffs have, with reasonable diligence, tried to serve Defendant by other means. 

Their efforts include: (1) an investigation into Defendant’s address; (2) ten attempts by a process 

Case 4:14-cv-03809-HSG Document 27 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 6
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

server to personally serve Defendant at her home under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.10; (3) an 

attempt by the process server to set up a meeting with Defendant; and (4) an attempt to mail and 

email copies of the pleadings to Defendant via both of Defendant’s purported attorneys. See Sax

Decl. ¶¶ 3–10, Exs. 1–4. Mr. Sax’s declaration and the attached exhibits suggest that Plaintiffs 

have made exhaustive efforts to locate Defendant. They have attempted in good faith practically 

every available avenue of serving Defendant.

Moreover, the declaration and exhibits support the conclusion that Defendant has actual 

notice of the lawsuit; therefore, the typical due process concern in allowing service by publication 

is less applicable in this scenario. See Donel, 87 Cal. App. 3d at 332. Here, Defendant apparently

retained two attorneys who were not only aware of the lawsuit but also reached out to Mr. Sax 

regarding the lawsuit. See Sax Decl. ¶ 6 (“Mr. Day...requested that I provide him with the 

summons and complaint in this action”) & Ex. 4 (December 19, 2014, Bertrand’s Faxed Letter to 

Mr. Sax) (“Please call me if you are interested in discussing possible resolution of our clients’ 

dispute”). Further, Defendant has been “cc[’d] via email” by her lawyer specifically about 

Plaintiffs’ attempts to serve her. See Sax Decl., Ex. 4 (December 19, 2014, Bertrand’s Faxed 

Letter to Mr. Sax). Finally, Defendant actually had a phone conversation with the process server. 

See Sax Decl., Ex. 2 (Declaration of Diligence). The evidence suggests that Defendant is aware of 

the pending litigation against her and is evading service. See Miller, 195 Cal. App. 2d at 786. 

In light of Plaintiffs’ exhaustive efforts to serve Defendant by other means and the 

likelihood that Defendant has actual knowledge of the lawsuit and is evading service, Plaintiffs’ 

Plaintiffs’ request for leave to serve Defendant by publication is GRANTED in part. Before 

effecting service by publication, Plaintiffs shall make a final attempt to provide copies of 

pleadings to Defendant by mail and following the procedures outlined in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 

415.30 and 415.40. Plaintiffs shall mail the papers to 7007 Woodland Avenue in Tahoma Park, 

Maryland as well as any newly discovered addresses of Defendant. Then, if Plaintiffs do not 

receive acknowledgment of receipt of summons (see § 415.30) or satisfactory proof of service (see

§§ 415.30, 417.20) within 35 days of mailing the papers, they shall effect service by publication in

The Gazette–a newspaper of general circulation in Maryland including Tahoma Park. See

Case 4:14-cv-03809-HSG Document 27 Filed 02/09/15 Page 5 of 6
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

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Serve the 

Summons upon Defendant by Publication and Award of Costs for Refusal to Waive Service. 

Publication shall occur once a week for four successive weeks pursuant to California Government 

Code § 6064. 

IV. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF COSTS

Plaintiffs’ request for costs of service is DENIED without prejudice. Once Defendant is 

served, Plaintiffs may renew this request. However, the Court cannot impose on Defendant any 

costs “incurred in making service,” where Defendant has not been served. Fed R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). 

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiffs’ request 

for leave to serve by publication, with the additional requirement to attempt proper service by mail

upon Defendant, and DENIED without prejudice as to Plaintiffs’ request for an award of costs 

under Rule 4(d)(1). Plaintiffs shall have 90 days from the date of this order in which to effect 

service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03809-HSG Document 27 Filed 02/09/15 Page 6 of 6