Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01894/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01894-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATT STRONG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1894-LAB (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO SERVE BY PUBLICATION;

AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DISMISSAL

vs.

FRANCES M. O’REILLY, TRUSTEE OF

THE FRANCES M. O’REILLY FAMILY

TRUST INITIALLY CREATED

FEBRUARY 1, 1995,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Matt Strong filed this action on July 27, 2016, bringing claims under the

Americans with Disabilities Act and supplemental state claims. The Defendant, Francis

O’Reilly, was alleged to be the owner of a shopping center where Strong wanted to shop. 

Strong has now filed an ex parte motion for leave to serve O’Reilly by publication. (Docket

no. 3.)

The application says that it appears O’Reilly died in 2011, and it appears her son is

Thomas Kenny now the property owner. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), federal service can

be effected by following state law requirements for service. Here, that means Strong can

serve the new Defendant as provided by California law. Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc.

§ 415.50, a party who cannot be served by a better method after reasonable diligence can

- 1 - 16cv1894

Case 3:16-cv-01894-LAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 09/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

be served by publication. Here, however, Strong has not been diligent. Instead, his motion

shows he has focused his efforts mainly on trying to serve O’Reilly, whom he knows is dead. 

His theory is that because the trusteeship has not properly been transferred to Kenny,

O’Reilly is in fact the proper party in interest and must somehow be served. (See Docket no.

3 at 13–18.)

Because ownership of land is a matter of public record, it is generally possible with

reasonable diligence to find out who owns shopping centers or other buildings, and to serve

that person or entity. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306,

318–19 (1950). Strong’s motion does not show that he has exercised reasonable diligence

in trying to find and serve that person or entity. His motion is therefore DENIED. 

The motion raises an additional problem for Strong. The Court’s enjoining the

deceased O’Reilly would obviously be futile. Furthermore, the Court cannot effectively enjoin

a successor-owner or successor-trustee by publication, particularly if that person isn’t named

in the complaint or summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (delinating who is bound by an

injunction). And because injunctive relief is the only kind of relief available to private parties

under the ADA, see Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165, 1174 (9 Cir. th

2010), all federal claims against O’Reilly are moot. That being so, the Court cannot exercise

jurisdiction over the supplemental claims either. See Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist.,

306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (where a court lacks jurisdiction over federal claims, it has

no discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims). At present,

neither the complaint nor the summons name a Defendant that the Court can exercise

jurisdiction over or enjoin. Before proceeding further, Strong must amend his complaint to

name a proper Defendant. When he does so, the Clerk is directed to issue a summons. 

Strong is ORDERED to amend his complaint no later than Tuesday, October 11,

2016. If he fails to amend within the time permitted, this action will be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute. 

If Strong needs more time to investigate a proper Defendant, he must file an ex parte

application explaining what steps he has already taken, what steps he will take to discover 

- 2 - 16cv1894

Case 3:16-cv-01894-LAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 09/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

who the proper Defendant is, and how long he estimates he will need to complete his

investigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv1894

Case 3:16-cv-01894-LAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 09/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3