Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02454/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02454-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY GILLIAM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MA ELIZA CANGGAS GILLIAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Currently before 

the court is plaintiff’s motion for service by publication upon defendant Ma Eliza Canggas 

Gilliam (“Defendant Canggas”) pursuant to California Civil Procedural Code § 415.50. ECF No. 

8. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow service upon individuals located within the 

United States according to the law for serving a summons “in the state where the district court is 

located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). However, when serving an individual in a foreign country an 

individual must be served by an “internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably 

calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service 

Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.” Id. at 4(f)(1). “[I]f there is no internationally 

agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means,” then an 

individual in a foreign country may be served “by [any] method that is reasonably calculated to 

give notice.” Id. at 4(f)(2). 

Case 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

Plaintiff does not allege facts showing that Defendant Canggas is an individual currently

in the United States. As noted above, reliance on state law for a method of service is appropriate 

only when an individual is located within the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Plaintiff 

does allege that he has attempted to effect personal service upon Defendant Canggas at her 

address, 7056 Lyndale Circle, Elk Grove, California 95758 (“the Property”). ECF No. 8, Exh. A 

at 2. However, it is unclear whether plaintiff is alleging that Defendant Canggas currently resides 

at the Property. For example, it is impossible to discern from plaintiff’s motion whether those 

who attempted to serve Defendant Canggas had any contact with her at the Property. See id. 

Further, in a December 9, 2014 motion, plaintiff alleged in no uncertain terms that Defendant 

Canggas currently resides in the Philippines. ECF No. 6 at 2. Based on these facts the court finds 

that plaintiff has not established that Defendant Canggas is an individual in the United States. 

Accordingly, service pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.50 is not appropriate. 

If Defendant Canggas currently resides in the Philippines, then service following state law 

is not permitted and plaintiff must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY DENIES plaintiff’s motion for service by 

publication (ECF No. 8) without prejudice.1

DATED: January 6, 2015 

 

1

 Even if plaintiff had clearly alleged that Defendant Canggas was an individual in the United States, the court could 

not grant his motion. “Service by publication is permissible ‘only as a last resort.’” Faegin v. LivingSocial, Inc., No. 

14CV00418-WQH-KSC, 2014 WL 5390331, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) (quoting Donel, Inc. v. Badalian, 150 

Cal. Rptr. 855, 858 (Ct. App. 1978)). Under California law, “[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.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50 

(emphasis added). Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that he has exercised reasonable diligence in effecting service 

by all other means. See Sanford v. Smith, 90 Cal. Rptr. 256, 262–63 (Ct. App. 1970) (approving the standards of 

diligence required by the local rules of Los Angeles Superior Court: recent inquiries of all relatives, friends, and other 

persons likely to know defendant's whereabouts; searches of city directories, telephone directories, tax rolls, and 

register of voters; and inquiries made of occupants of all real estate involved in the litigation). For example, plaintiff 

alleges that every time he has attempted to serve Defendant Canggas at her residence she has refused to answer her 

door. ECF No. 9, Exh. A at 2. However, it is impossible to tell from plaintiff’s allegations whether (1) Defendant 

Canggas was present at the time; (2) anyone else was present at the time; or (3) Defendant Canggas had any contact 

with the process servers. Further, plaintiff does not allege that he attempted to contact her family, friends, or anyone 

else who knows her whereabouts to confirm her location. See Kott v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215, 221 

(1996). 

Case 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 2