Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01813/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01813-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

ORDER – No. 19-cv-01813-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

GERARDO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SRIJA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01813-LB

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO SERVE 

DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION

Re: ECF No. 20

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez sued defendants Srija, Inc. (doing business as Subway #32364)

and Carol Lynn Chang, Trustee of the Red Envelope Trust, under Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 for failure to make Subway #32364 wheelchair accessible.1 Ms. Chang 

owns the lot where the Subway store is located.2 Mr. Hernandez served Srija3and Srija answered 

the complaint.4 Mr. Hernandez made several unsuccessful attempts to serve Ms. Chang with the 

summons and complaint and believes she is evading service. Mr. Hernandez contends that Ms. 

 

1 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 1–2. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint 

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

2 Decl. of Tanya E. Moore – ECF No. 20-1 at 2. 

3 Proof of Service – ECF No. 8.

4 Srija Answer – ECF No. 12. 

Case 3:19-cv-01813-LB Document 24 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-cv-01813-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

Chang cannot be located with reasonable diligence.5 Mr. Hernandez thus seeks to serve Ms. Chang

by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of San Carlos.

6

The court can decide the matter without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). California 

Civil Procedure Code § 415.50(a) requires a plaintiff seeking to serve a summons by publication 

to demonstrate, “upon affidavit,” that “[a] cause of action exists against the party upon whom 

service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.” As Mr. Hernandez

has not filed a sworn affidavit demonstrating that he has a claim against Ms. Chang, the court 

denies without prejudice his application to serve Ms. Chang by publication.

STATEMENT

Mr. Hernandez identified Ms. Chang as the owner of the lot by reviewing the Grant Deed for 

744 El Camino Real in San Carlos, California (the location of the Subway store).

7 Mr. Hernandez 

also confirmed Ms. Chang’s address by reviewing the Assessment Record for San Mateo County 

using the Subway store’s address.8

Mr. Hernandez sought to effect service on Ms. Chang at her residence beginning April 8, 

2019.9 Mr. Hernandez hired a process server, County Process Services, to serve Ms. Chang.10

County Process Services attempted service at Ms. Chang’s residence fifteen times between April 9 

and June 21, 2019.11 Through these attempts, County Process Services noted that there were 

packages addressed to Ms. Chang on the front porch and a white Honda Accord and blue Honda 

van in the driveway.

12 County Process Services also conducted three stakeouts on varying days 

 

5 Mot. for Serv. by Pub. – ECF No. 20 at 1.

6 Supplemental Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Mot. – ECF 20-1 at 4.

7 Decl. of Tanya E. Moore – ECF No. 20-2 at 1–2 (¶ 2). 

8

Id. at 2 (¶ 2).

9 Supplemental Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Mot. – ECF No. 20-1 at 4.

10 Decl. of Tanya E. Moore – ECF No. 20-2 at 2 (¶ 3).

11 Id. at 2-3 (¶¶ 4–12).

12 Id. (¶¶ 4–11). 

Case 3:19-cv-01813-LB Document 24 Filed 09/16/19 Page 2 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-cv-01813-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

and times between July 9 and July 18, 2019 at her purported residence.

13 County Process Services 

conducted additional service attempts on July 19 and July 31, 2019.14 On July 19, 2019, County 

Process Services requested a postal trace from the United States Post Office for the address 

associated with Ms. Chang.15 On July 26, 2019, the postal-trace report stated that mail sent to Ms. 

Chang’s address was deliverable.16 County Process Services conducted two additional stakeouts 

on July 26 and August 3, 2019.17 County Process Services attempted to serve Ms. Chang two final 

times on August 1 and 2, 2019.18

ANALYSIS

1. Governing Law

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

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

which service is effected. 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 

“substitute service”), see id. § 415.20; (3) service by mail with acknowledgment of receipt, see 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. California 

Code of Civil Procedure § 413.30 also provides that a court “may direct that summons be served 

in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party served.” Courts in this 

district have authorized service by email under California Civil Procedure Code § 413.30. See, 

e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Shaitor, No. 18-cv-00480-LB, 2018 WL 3109398, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. June 

 

13 Id. at 3 (¶ 15).

14 Id. (¶ 17).

15 Id. (¶ 16).

16 Id. at 3-4 (¶ 18).

17 Id. at 4 (¶¶ 19, 22).

18 Id. (¶¶ 20–21). 

Case 3:19-cv-01813-LB Document 24 Filed 09/16/19 Page 3 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-cv-01813-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

25, 2018); 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); Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, LLC, No. C-11-

3619 YGR, 2012 WL 1038752, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012).

California law permits service 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 Article 3 of the California Code of Civil 

Procedure. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(a). 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 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). “Before allowing a plaintiff to resort to service by publication, the courts necessarily 

require him to show exhaustive attempts to locate the defendant, for it is generally recognized that 

service by publication rarely results in actual notice.” Watts v. Crawford, 10 Cal. 4th 743, 749 n.5 

(1995) (internal quotations and citations omitted). And because of due process concerns, service 

by publication should be allowed only “as a last resort.” Donel, 87 Cal. App. 3d at 333.

Taking a few reasonable steps to serve a defendant does not necessarily mean that all “myriad 

of other avenues” have been properly exhausted to warrant service by publication. Id. A plaintiff 

will generally satisfy his burden through “[a] number of honest attempts to learn [a] defendant’s 

whereabouts or his address” by asking his relatives, friends, acquaintances, or employers, and by 

investigating “appropriate city and telephone directories, the voters’ register, and the real and 

personal property index in the assessor’s office, near the defendant’s last known location.” Kott, 

45 Cal. App. 4th at 1137 (internal quotations omitted). “These are likely sources of information, 

and consequently must be searched before resorting to service by publication.” Id. The reasonablediligence inquiry is fact and case specific. Id. at 1137–38 (“[T]he showing of diligence in a given 

case must rest on its own facts and no single formula or mode of search can be said to constitute 

due diligence in every case.”). 

Case 3:19-cv-01813-LB Document 24 Filed 09/16/19 Page 4 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-cv-01813-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

In addition to the reasonable-diligence requirement, a plaintiff seeking to serve a summons by 

publication must demonstrate “upon affidavit” that “[a] cause of action exists against the party 

upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.” Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(a)(1). The plaintiff “must offer ‘independent evidentiary support, in the 

form of a sworn statement of facts, for the existence of a cause of action against the defendant.’” 

Cummings v. Hale, No. 15-cv-04723-JCS, 2016 WL 4762208, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2016) 

(quoting McNamara v. Sher, No. 11-cv-1344-BEN (WVG), 2012 WL 760531, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

Mar. 8, 2012)); see also Zhang v. Tse, Nos. C 07-4946 JSW, C 05-2641 JSW, 2012 WL 3583036, 

at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2012) (collecting cases). The declaration must be signed by someone 

with personal knowledge of the essential facts. Cummings, 2016 WL 4762208 at *3 (denying the 

plaintiff’s request for service by publication because the submitted declaration “d[id] not purport 

to be an affidavit, [was] not sworn, and d[id] not demonstrate counsel’s personal knowledge of the 

facts at issue”).

2. Application

Mr. Hernandez has not filed an affidavit demonstrating that he has a claim against Ms. Chang. 

Although he includes affidavits describing the lengths to which County Process Services and his 

attorney went to serve Ms. Chang, none of the affidavits provides “independent evidentiary 

support . . . for the existence of a cause of action against the defendant.” The court thus denies 

without prejudice his application to serve Ms. Chang by publication. Cf. Cummings, 2016 WL 

4762208, at *3.

Separately, while the court does not decide the issue here, it raises as a question whether Mr. 

Hernandez has demonstrated sufficiently that he cannot with reasonable diligence serve Ms. 

Chang in another manner. Ms. Chang allegedly owns the lot on which the Subway store is located, 

and thus presumably Srija leases its storefront from Ms. Chang and has to pay her rent. Mr. 

Hernandez does not say whether he asked Srija (which has appeared in this litigation) whether it 

has contact information for Ms. Chang, such as an email address, which might provide an 

alternative means for service. Cf. Castillo-Antonio v. Azurdia, No. C-13-05709 DMR, 2014 WL 

Case 3:19-cv-01813-LB Document 24 Filed 09/16/19 Page 5 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-cv-01813-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

4060219, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) (denying motion to serve summons and complaint by 

publication where plaintiff did not contact defendant’s co-defendant for defendant’s contact 

information); see also, e.g., Cisco, 2018 WL 3109398, at *3–4 (authorizing service by email). Mr. 

Hernandez also does not say whether he tried to contact Ms. Chang by other means, such as 

calling her by phone or mailing her a copy of the summons and complaint, which may be relevant 

to (1) whether Mr. Hernandez has shown reasonable diligence, cf. Aevoe Corp. v. Pace, No. C 11-

3215 MEJ, 2011 WL 3904133, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011) (finding that plaintiff exercised 

reasonable diligence where, among other things, it called the phone numbers attached to 

defendant’s known addresses and sent the complaint by certified mail to defendant’s known 

addresses) and (2) whether Ms. Chang has actual notice of the lawsuit and is evading service, thus 

bolstering the case for service by publication, cf. Lucero v. IRA Servs., Inc., No. 18-cv-05395-LB, 

2019 WL 2123576, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2019) (observing that whether a defendant has actual 

knowledge of the lawsuit may be relevant to a motion to serve by publication). Should Mr. 

Hernandez renew his motion to serve the summons and complaint by publication (as opposed to in 

another manner), he may wish to address these issues in more depth.

CONCLUSION

The court denies without prejudice Mr. Hernandez’s application to serve Ms. Chang by 

publication.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01813-LB Document 24 Filed 09/16/19 Page 6 of 6