Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04114/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04114-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 06-04114 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

(JFEX2)

**E-filed 6/6/07 **

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DANIEL L. BALSAM,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ANGELES TECHNOLOGY INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-04114 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR 1

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 

[re: docket no. 23]

This case arises from Plaintiff’s receipt of unsolicited commercial email messages

(“UCE’s” or “spam”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sent him UCE’s that contained

fraudulent headers, subject lines, date/time stamps, and content, and that were not clearly marked

as “SEXUALLY EXPLICIT” as required by law. Plaintiff alleges that the UCE’s referred him to

www.adultactioncam.com and other related websites. 

On May 23, 2006, Balsam filed the original complaint in this action in Santa Clara

Superior Court. The original complaint asserted a claim for violations of California law

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 31 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C 06-04114 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

(JFEX2)

restricting unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisers, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5, as well

as under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. The original

complaint named defendants Angeles Technology Inc. (“Angeles”), Futurecast Media LLC

(“Futurecast”), One World Media LLC (“One World”), Carolynne Tilga (“Tilga”), Grant

Simmons, John Solamito, and Does 1-100.

On June 30, 2006, Tilga removed the action to this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. 

The notice of removal stated that, as of the time of removal, only Tilga and Angeles had been

served. Tilga asserted that she could not gain Angeles’ assent to removal because of Balsam’s

delay in filing proof of service and because of her inability to contact Angeles. Tilga asserted

that she knew of no reason why Angeles or any of the unserved defendants would not join in the

removal notice.

On September 25, 2006, Balsam filed an amended complaint (“FAC”). The FAC

asserted the same two claims that Balsam asserted in the original complaint. The FAC added

two corporate defendants and named twelve new individual defendants who allegedly reside in

California (collectively “the California Defendants”).

On October 27, 2006, Tilga moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction

and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Alternatively, Tilga moved to

transfer the case to a more convenient forum. Balsam opposed the motion. The Court heard oral

argument on December 1, 2006. On December 12, 2006 this Court granted Tilga’s motion to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

On April 5, 2007, Balsam filed the instant motion to serve the California Defendants by

email. Balsam asserts that he is unable to deliver service of process to the California Defendants

through traditional means because the contact information defendants provided to the domain

name registrars is incomplete and incorrect. The motion is unopposed. At oral argument on June

1, 2007 Balsam voluntarily dismissed defendants Jhon Brown, Rosie Beer, Sam Van, Daniel

Marcus, Jason Smith, Mary Jameson, Brian Long, Rod Heather, Elle Jane, Jose Beff, Carl

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 31 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 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

 The remaining defendants are Angeles, Futurecast, One World Media, Grant Simmons, 2

and John Solamito.

3

Case No. C 06-04114 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

(JFEX2)

Seymore, and Robert Smith pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2

Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of process upon

individuals within a judicial district of the United States:

Service Upon Individuals Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless

otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual from whom a

waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent

person, may be effected in any judicial district of the United States:

(1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in

which service is effected, for the service of a summons upon the defendant in an

action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the State; or

(2) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual

personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual

place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing

therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent

authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). The goal of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 is to “to provide maximum freedom and

flexibility in the procedures for giving all defendants . . . notice of commencement of the action

and to eliminate unnecessary technicality in connection with service of process.” Electrical

Specialty Co. v. Road and Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 314 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 4 C.

Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1061, at 216 (2d ed. 1987)). Due Process

requires that any service of notice be “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise

interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their

objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), the Court concludes that it should look to the law of

California, the state in which this Court sits, to determine the sufficiency of the proposed service. 

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 and that proof of such service be made as prescribed by the

court.

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 31 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Case No. C 06-04114 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

(JFEX2)

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30.

Balsam argues that the Court should grant his motion for alternative service because the

defendants, who may or may not be real individuals, provided incomplete contact information to

domain name registrars. Motion 2. Also, in instances where Balsam found a valid address of a

defendant, the letters he sent were returned as undeliverable because the defendant did not reside

at that address. Motion 3. In light of his inability to serve the defendants by traditional methods,

Balsam asserts that service by email constitutes an appropriate substitute that would allow him to

contact the defendants via what he alleges to be their “preferred method of communication.” 

Motion 5. 

The goal of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 is to provide a plaintiff with flexibility in providing notice

to a defendant. Electrical Speciality Co., 967 F.2d at 314. California law requires that the

method be “reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served.” Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code § 413.30. Service via email appears to be reasonable in this action. However, the Balsam

has not identified the email addresses he would use to contact the various defendants. 

Accordingly, to ensure that the emails are “reasonably calculated to give notice to the party

served,” Cal Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30, Balsam shall, on or before June 20, 2007, provide the

Court with the email addresses he proposes to use for service with a brief explanation as to why

he believes that email address will reasonably give the party notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 6, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 31 Filed 06/06/07 Page 4 of 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

5

Case No. C 06-04114 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Gary Jay Kaufman gary@garyjkaufmanlaw.com, marijana@garyjkaufmanlaw.com 

Timothy J. Walton ecf.cand@netatty.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Dana Milmeister 

The Kaufman Law Group

1925 Century Park East

Suite 2350

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Marijana Stanojevic 

The Kaufman Law Group

1925 Century Park East

Suite 2350

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 31 Filed 06/06/07 Page 5 of 5