Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00894-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roland A. Dunn
Defendant
Trudy L. Dunn
Defendant
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROLAND A. DUNN, TRUDY L. DUNN, 

and DOES 1-10,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-00894-TLN-AC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Scott Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) request for an 

order directing that service of summons be effected by publication in The Tahoe Daily Tribune 

newspaper, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50. (ECF No. 5.) Section 

415.50 permits a court to direct service of summons by publication when “it appears to the 

satisfaction of the court . . . that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served 

in another manner.” The Court is not satisfied with Plaintiff’s arguments in support of service by 

publication. 

Plaintiff asserts service has been attempted at four different addresses and provides 52 

pages of exhibits listing the different times and locations service of process was attempted. 

However, the Court notes that many of these pages are duplicates of the same list and provide no 

new information. Furthermore, the exhibits demonstrate Plaintiff was on notice as of July 6, 

Case 2:16-cv-00894-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 11/03/16 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

2016, that the Dunn’s permanent residence is in Gardnerville, Nevada, not South Lake Tahoe. 

(ECF No. 5–5 at 4.) Plaintiff’s continued attempts to serve Defendants at addresses in South 

Lake Tahoe after July 6, 2016, do not establish due diligence. Nor does Plaintiff mention 

attempting to serve Defendants in Gardnerville or investigating whether Defendants do in fact 

reside in Gardnerville. Moreover, even if the Court were satisfied with Plaintiff’s attempts to 

serve Defendants, the Court hesitates to allow publication in a newspaper published in an area 

Defendants likely do not reside.

For the above stated reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s request for service of 

summons by publication (ECF No. 5).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00894-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 2