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

E-filed 3/21/2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

FERNANDO GONZALEZ,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-00137-HRL 

ORDER GRANTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM 

SERVICE DEADLINE

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Plaintiff Jose Trujillo (“Trujillo”) requests that the court extend the deadline to complete 

service upon defendant Fernando Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”). Dkt. No. 14. The court set the current

deadline of March 13, 2017, in its initial case management scheduling order. Dkt. No. 4.

In his administrative motion, Trujillo states that he has been diligently attempting to serve 

Gonzalez, the alleged owner of the subject property in this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

denial of access case. Dkt. No. 14. Trujillo’s eight attempts to serve Gonzalez at what Trujillo

initially believed to be Defendant’s home address (as identified through LexisNexis and Parcel 

Quest) were unsuccessful. Dkt. No. 14, Best Decl., ¶ 3. These attempts having failed, Trujillo 

then discovered another address for Gonzalez and attempted service there. Id., ¶ 4-6. Gonzalez, 

Plaintiff asserts, is the CEO of the San Benito Community Services Development Corporation, 

and the new address is listed on a form related to that organization that was filed with the 

California Secretary of State. Id., ¶ 4-6, Ex. C.

Trujillo claims that substitute service was completed on March 10, with the summons and 

complaint subsequently mailed on March 13, 2017. Id., ¶ 7. Plaintiff argues that, under California 

law, service is effective as of March 23, 2017, ten days after the mailing was completed.

1

 Plaintiff 

 

1

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 415.20(b), if service cannot be completed 

in person through the exercise of reasonable diligence, a summons may be served via substitute 

Case 5:17-cv-00137-HRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 2
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

thus requests that the court extend the deadline to serve Defendant for 14 days to March 27, 2017. 

Dkt. No. 14.

As the deadline for service in this case is determined by a court scheduling order rather 

than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, Rule 16(b)(4) applies. This rule states: “[a] schedule may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 

16(b)’s good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 

amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, 

Trujillo diligently attempted to serve Gonzalez at what Plaintiff reasonably thought was his home 

address. Plaintiff attempted service eight times, including two three-hour stake-outs. After the 

latter two attempts failed, Trujillo promptly located a new address for Gonzalez and promptly 

attempted service at the new address.

The court is persuaded that Trujillo has been diligent in attempting to serve Gonzalez, and 

that good cause exists to extend the deadline to complete service. The court extends the deadline 

to complete service to March 27, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/21/2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

 

service, and by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the address at which substitute 

service was completed. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(b). “Service of a summons in this manner 

is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” Id.

Case 5:17-cv-00137-HRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 2