Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02312/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02312-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Plaintiff
Ward Technical Products, Inc
Defendant

Document Text:

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

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARD TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-02312-DAD-DB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO SERVE 

DEFENDANT THROUGH THE 

CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE

(Doc. No. 4)

Currently before the court is plaintiff Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s ex parte

application for an order authorizing service of defendant Ward Technical Products, Inc. by

hand delivery of the summons and complaint to the California Secretary of State. (Doc. No. 4.) 

On February 2, 2023, plaintiff’s application was taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 

5.) For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s application will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a wholly owned United States government corporation and agency established 

to administer the pension plan termination insurance program under Title IV of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1461. (Doc. No. 4 at 1–2.) 

Defendant is a California corporation that operated at 853 Cotting Court # B, Vacaville, 

/////

Case 2:22-cv-02312-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 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

2

California, and it is the plan administrator of the SPI Control System Pension Plan (the “Pension 

Plan”). (Id. at 2.) 

On December 29, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant initiating this action 

under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1342(c) and 1348(a), seeking an order (a) terminating the Pension Plan, (b) 

appointing plaintiff as statutory trustee of the Pension Plan, (c) establishing May 31, 2019 as the 

termination date for the Pension Plan, and (d) directing defendant and any other person or entity 

having possession, custody, or control of any records, assets, or other property of the Pension 

Plan, to transfer, convey, and deliver all such records, assets, and property to plaintiff. (Doc. No. 

1 at 1–2.) 

On February 1, 2023, plaintiff filed the pending ex parte application. (Doc. No. 4.) In its 

application, plaintiff seeks approval to make alternative service on defendant by serving the 

California Secretary of State pursuant to the California Corporations Code § 1702(a), contending 

that it is unable to complete service pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 415.10, 

415.20, 415.30, 416.10, or 416.20. (Id. at 3.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(h)(1)(A) allows for service on a corporation in the 

manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A). In turn, 

Rule 4(e)(1) allows a plaintiff to serve process by “following state law for serving a summons in 

an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or 

where service is made[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). 

Pursuant to California law, when a plaintiff cannot with “reasonable diligence” locate a 

defendant’s designated agent or any other person authorized to receive service, California 

Corporations Code § 1702(a) permits an application for a court order that service be made by 

hand delivery of the summons and complaint to the California Secretary of State:

If an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and 

has not been replaced or if the agent designated cannot with 

reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for 

personally delivering the process, or if no agent has been 

designated, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the 

court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served 

with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the 

Case 2:22-cv-02312-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 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

3

manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 

415.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil 

Procedure or upon the corporation in the manner provided in 

subdivision (a), (b) or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a) of 

Section 416.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make 

an order that the service be made upon the corporation by 

delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person 

employed in the Secretary of State’s office in the capacity of 

assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be 

served, together with a copy of the order authorizing such service.

Cal. Corp. Code § 1702(a). “‘[A]s a condition precedent to the issuance of an order for such 

substituted service’ a plaintiff’s affidavit must establish that ‘the corporation cannot be served 

with the exercise of due diligence in any other manner provided by law.’” Viewtech, Inc. v. 

Skytech USA, Inc., No. 07-cv-541-L-NLS, 2007 WL 1429903, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2007)

(citing Batte v. Bandy, 165 Cal. App. 2d 527, 535 (1958)). 

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 415.10, 415.20, and 415.30 provide the rules for 

personal service, substitute service, and service by mail, whereas §§ 416.10 and 416.20 provide 

the rules governing service on a corporation. In addition to delivery to a designated agent, §

416.10 provides that a summons may be served on a corporation “[t]o the president, chief 

executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant 

secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general 

manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.” Cal. Civ. Proc. 

Code § 416.10(b). Section 416.20 prescribes service on a corporation that “has forfeited its 

charter or right to do business” or “dissolved.” Id. § 416.20(a). 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to serve defendant through the California Secretary of State. The court 

must analyze whether the conditions set forth in California Corporation Code § 1702(a) have 

been satisfied, including, in particular, whether plaintiff has demonstrated its inability to effect 

service on the designated agent in the manner provided for in California Code of Civil Procedure 

§§ 415.10, 415.20(a), and 415.30(a); or upon the corporation in the manner provided for in §§ 

416.10 or 416.20(a). See Cal. Corp. Code § 1702(a).

/////

Case 2:22-cv-02312-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 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

4

In its pending application, plaintiff contends that defendant’s registered agent for service 

of process—Mr. Charles Ward—passed away; that defendant Ward Technical Products, Inc. has 

ceased operations and has not designated another agent; and that defendant does not have any 

other officers or agents. (Doc. No. 4 at 2–3.) Plaintiff has also attached Mr. Ward’s death 

certificate as an exhibit to its pending application. (Id. at 10.) In light of Mr. Ward’s death, the 

court finds that the summons and complaint cannot be served, despite the exercise of reasonable 

diligence, on defendant’s designated agent by personal service, substitute service, or service by 

mail with acknowledgment of receipt in the manner provided in California Code of Civil 

Procedure § §§ 415.10, 415.20(a), 415.30(a). Nor can service be effected on the corporation in 

the manner provided in California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10(a), which authorizes service 

on “the person designated as agent for service of process.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.10(a). 

Moreover, service on defendant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 

416.10(b) cannot be reasonably effected because plaintiff has shown that there are no living 

individuals affiliated with defendant. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.10(b) (stating that service 

upon a corporation may be made by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint “[t]o 

president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or 

assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a 

general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process”). 

Plaintiff’s counsel, William Mabry IV, filed a declaration in support of the pending application. 

The following account is derived from Mr. Mabry’s declaration and the exhibits attached thereto. 

On September 6, 2022, plaintiff sent an email to Mr. Ward’s son, Mr. Kevin Ward, requesting 

that Mr. Kevin Ward execute an agreement terminating the Pension Plan, establishing the Pension

Plan’s termination date, and appointing plaintiff as trustee of the Pension Plan under 29 U.S.C. § 

1342(c). (Doc. No. 4 at 7.) On September 7, 2022, Mr. Kevin Ward responded that he could not

execute the agreement on behalf of the company as he was not a trustee of SPI Control Systems 

Pension and was not an officer of defendant Ward Technical Products. (Id. at 7, 17.) Mr. Kevin 

Ward further stated that Mr. Ward does not have an executor for his estate and that “[t]here is no 

one else that could sign on behalf of Ward Technical Products.” (Id. at 8, 17.) Plaintiff’s counsel 

Case 2:22-cv-02312-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 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

5

attested that he was informed and believes that Mr. Ward was the director, president, and 100 

percent owner of defendant and that on or before May 31, 2019, defendant terminated its 

employees. (Id. at 7.) Thus, according to plaintiff, defendant Ward Technical Products, Inc. has 

no officers or agents. (Id. at 3.) As such, the court concludes that service cannot be effected,

despite the exercise of reasonable diligence by plaintiff, on the corporation in the manner 

provided in California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10(b). 

Plaintiff has also demonstrated that it cannot effect service on defendant pursuant to 

California Codes of Civil Procedure § 416.20, which provides a means to serve a summons on a 

corporation that has dissolved or has forfeited its charter or right to do business. Cal. Civ. Proc. 

Code § 416.20(a). Specifically, § 416.20(a) provides that a summons may be served “[t]o a 

person who is a trustee of the corporation and of its stockholders or members” or as authorized by 

certain sections of the California Corporations Code. Id. § 416.20(a)–(b). Here, plaintiff does not 

clearly allege that defendant is dissolved or forfeited its charter or right to do business. Rather, 

plaintiff only alleges that defendant is listed as “Suspended – FTB/SOS” on the California 

Secretary of State website. (Doc. No. 4 at 2, 7, 12); see Dakavia Mgmt. Corp. v. Bigelow, No. 

1:20-cv-00448-NONE-SKO, 2020 WL 2112261, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2020) (declining to 

analyze whether service could be effected under California Codes of Civil Procedure § 416.20

where the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant was dissolved or forfeited its charter or right 

to do business). However, as noted above, plaintiff did contact Mr. Ward’s son, Mr. Kevin Ward,

by email, and Mr. Kevin Ward replied that there was “no one else that could sign on behalf of 

Ward Technical Products.” (Doc. No. 4 at 8, 17.) Thus, even if defendant is dissolved or has 

forfeited its charter or right to do business, the court concludes that service on defendant pursuant 

to California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.20 cannot be reasonably effected. 

Finally, a motion for an order to serve a corporation pursuant to California Corporations 

Code § 1702(a) requires an affidavit stating that the corporation cannot be served with reasonable 

diligence. Plaintiff has fulfilled this requirement by submitting a declaration along with the 

pending application, in which plaintiff shows that it has been reasonably diligent in attempting to 

give defendant actual notice of the pendency of the action. For example, plaintiff contacted Mr. 

Case 2:22-cv-02312-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 04/14/23 Page 5 of 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

6

Ward’s son, Mr. Kevin Ward, in an attempt to locate a suitable person to serve. (See Doc. No. 4 

at 3); see also Minden Pictures, Inc. v. Interpac Yachts, Inc., No. 20-cv-739-WQH-BLM, 2020 

WL 5363304, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2020) (finding that the plaintiff had demonstrated 

reasonable diligence where it “presented evidence that it attempted to serve Defendant at its 

address registered with the Secretary of State by mail and attempted to personally serve 

Defendant’s CEO, CFO, Secretary, and Registered Agent for Service three times” and “presented 

evidence that it attempted to locate other addresses for Defendant and for other agents or officers 

of Defendant”); James River Ins. Co. v. Discovery Glass, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00376-LJO-BAM,

2019 WL 2410721, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2019) (concluding that the plaintiff had demonstrated 

reasonable diligence in attempting to serve the registered agent for the defendant at the address 

designated for personal delivery and at the address designated with the Secretary of State). 

In sum, based on showing made by plaintiff, the court finds that plaintiff has adequately 

demonstrated that process cannot be served with reasonable diligence on the designated agent in 

the manner provided in California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 415.10, 415.20(a), and 415.30(a); 

or upon the corporation in the manner provided in §§ 416.10 or 416.20(a). Accordingly, the court 

will grant plaintiff leave to serve defendant by service upon the Secretary of State of California

pursuant to California Corporations Code § 1702(a). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s ex parte application to serve defendant by 

serving the California Secretary of State as set forth in California Corporations Code § 1702(a)

(Doc. No. 4) is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-02312-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 04/14/23 Page 6 of 6