Source: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2011cv03934/501363/6/
Timestamp: 2014-10-31 20:58:37
Document Index: 298797771

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§\n415', '§ 6064', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 415', '§ 6064']

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION AND MAIL AND REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECT SERVICE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by plaintiff DC Comics for DC Comics v. Mark Towle et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings Justia.com
EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION AND MAIL AND REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECT SERVICE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by plaintiff DC Comics. (Attachments: # 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION AND MAIL AND REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECT SERVICE)(Drey, Nicole)
Mark Towle, an individual and doing )
business as Gotham Garage, and
Does 1 - 10, inclusive,
Case No.: CV11-03934 RSWL
DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION
AND MAIL AND REQUEST FOR
WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECT
SERVICE; MEMORANDUM OF
Plaintiff DC Comics (“DC”) (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order authorizing service of
the Summons in this matter upon Defendant Mark Towle, an individual and doing
business as Gotham Garage (“Defendant”) via publication and mail, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and California Civil Code of Procedure § 415.50.
This application is made in the interests of justice and pursuant to the Court’s power
to authorize publication as a means for service as provided by Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 4(e)(1) and California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50. This
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING
SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION AND MAIL AND REQUEST FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECT SERVICE;
application is made on the grounds that Plaintiff has stated a cause of action against
Defendant, as shown by the Complaint on file, and Defendant cannot with reasonable
diligence be found and served in any other manner specified in California Code of
Civil Procedure §§ 415.10 through 415.40.
In addition, Plaintiff respectfully requests a sixty (60) day enlargement of time
to effect service of process within the Court’s broad discretion pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 6(b) to grant such an enlargement so long as the
request is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed.
This application is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
Declarations filed in support, including Exhibits attached thereto, the Complaint and
any other papers and records on file in this action and upon such additional evidence
and arguments as may be presented at, or before, the hearing on Plaintiff’s
Despite Plaintiff not having yet served Defendant, Plaintiff has served notice of
this Application on Defendant’s counsel on or about August 31, 2011.
By: __/s Nicole L. Drey___________________
Defendant Mark Towle, an individual and doing business as Gotham Garage
(“Defendant”), is a manufacturer and distributor of unlicensed and counterfeit replica
Batman vehicles who will be rewarded for concealing his whereabouts and evading
service to avoid responsibility for his illegal actions if this application is not granted.
As alleged in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff DC Comics (“Plaintiff”), Defendant is
actively manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, renting, and distributing unlicensed
and counterfeit replica vehicles, and kits comprised of assorted parts and accessories,
which incorporate unauthorized reproductions of fanciful vehicles copyrighted and
trademarked by DC Comics from its world famous BATMAN property, including, but
not necessarily limited to the various BATMOBILE vehicles and all of their
BATMAN-related indicia and components within this Judicial District through his
fully interactive commercial Internet website operating under the domain name
GothamGarage.net.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and California Code of
Civil Procedure § 415.50, Plaintiff requests an order allowing service of process on
Defendant via publication and mail. Service by publication and mail is appropriate
and necessary in this case because the Defendant’s current residence is unknown. See
Declaration of Nicole L. Drey (“Drey Decl.”) at ¶¶ 3-7, Exhibits (“Exs.”) A-C.
Defendant has also failed to return an Acknowledgment of Service, leaving Plaintiff
with no other course for service than that by publication and mail. See id. at ¶ 8.
Further, although counsel for Defendant (Lawrence Zerner of Los Angeles,
California) has contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and acknowledged that his client is aware
of the filing of this action, he has specifically refused to accept service on Defendant’s
behalf or provide an executed Waiver of Service. Id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff thus respectfully
submits that an order allowing service of process via publication and mail in this case
will benefit all parties and the Court by ensuring the Defendant receives immediate
notice of the pendency of this action and allowing this action to move forward
expeditiously. Absent the ability to serve the Defendant by publication and mail,
Plaintiff will almost certainly be left without the ability to pursue a remedy.
Defendant owns, operates and manages a business producing custom cars
related to various television shows, movies and other fanciful and copyrighted works.
Complaint (“Compl.”) at ¶¶ 1, 20. Specifically, Defendant’s business manufactures,
sells, offers for sale, rents, and distributes unlicensed and counterfeit replica vehicles
and kits comprised of assorted parts and accessories which incorporate unauthorized
reproductions of fanciful vehicles copyrighted and trademarked by Plaintiff from its
world-famous BATMAN property, including, but not necessarily limited to, the
various BATMOBILE vehicles and all of their BATMAN-related indicia and
components (collectively “Infringing Product”). Id. at ¶¶ 1, 23, 25, 34.
On or about May 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant. Drey
Decl. at ¶ 2. Thereafter, Plaintiff has attempted to serve Defendant via personal
service at five (5) different addresses on no less than nineteen (19) different occasions.
Id. at ¶¶ 3-4, 7, Exs. A, B & C. Plaintiff has also attempted to effect service through
an Acknowledgment of Service as well as Defendant’s counsel, Lawrence Zerner of
Los Angeles, but Defendant has refused both means. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6, 8.
Plaintiffs, therefore, demonstrate good cause for leave to serve Defendant by
publication and mail as well as an enlargement of time within which to effect service
The Court May Authorize Service via Publication and Mail Pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) states that service may be effected
pursuant to the law of the forum state. California law provides for service to be made
on out-of-state residents by either (1) personal service, (2) substituted service, (3) mail
and acknowledgment of receipt, (4) certified mail, or (5) publication. Cal. Code Civ.
Proc. § 415.10, et seq. Service by publication, however, requires a court order prior to
service attempts in order for service to be valid. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(a).
Plaintiffs respectfully request such an order in order to effect service of process upon
the evasive Defendant.
Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated Reasonable Diligence and a
Cause of Action Against Defendant.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50(a) provides that service may be
effected by publication, pursuant to court order, if “the party to be served cannot with
reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article and … 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.”
Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to serve Defendant by either personal service
or substituted service. See Drey Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4, 7, Exs. A, B & C. These attempts
have proven unsuccessful. See id. Plaintiff has also attempted to secure service
through Defendant’s counsel, but counsel has refused to accept service on Defendant’s
behalf or sign a waiver of service. Id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff has attempted to serve
Defendant by mail and acknowledgment as well, but as of the time of this filing,
Defendant has not returned the Acknowledgment of Service and is unlikely to do so
given his ongoing efforts to evade service and his counsel’s statements that Defendant
would not waive service. See id. at ¶ 8; see also id. at ¶¶ 3-7. At this point, there is no
other means of service available to Plaintiff other than service by publication.
Further, Plaintiff has demonstrated a valid cause of action against Defendant.
Plaintiff has alleged in its Complaint that Defendant’s manufacture and distribution of
unauthorized replica BATMOBILE vehicles infringes its copyrights and trademarks.
See Complaint, generally. Thus, a cause of action exists against Defendant such that
service by publication is proper.
Plaintiff Has Identified the Means Most Likely to Provide
Actual Notice to Defendant of this Lawsuit.
Although it is clear from the contacts initiated by Defendant’s counsel that
Defendant is aware of this action, this does not constitute “actual notice” under
California law. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50(b), “[t]he
court shall order the summons to be published in a named newspaper, published in
this state, that is most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served. If the party
to be served resides or is located out of this state, the court may also order the
summons to be published in a named newspaper outside this state that is most likely to
give actual notice to that party.” Plaintiff has determined that Defendant is most
likely residing in Santa Ana, California, or the immediately surrounding area. Drey
Decl. at ¶ 7. Thus, Defendant will most likely receive actual notice of this lawsuit
through a newspaper targeted to residents of Santa Ana, such as the Orange County
Register. Id. at ¶ 10.
Further, if a defendant’s address is ascertained before the expiration of the time
prescribed for publication of the summons, copies of the summons, complaint and
order for publication must be mailed to the defendant. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §
415.50(b). While Plaintiff has not yet conclusively determined a physical or mailing
address for Defendant, Plaintiff has what it believes to be the last known address for
Defendant. Drey Decl. at ¶ 7. Further, Plaintiff has been contacted by counsel for
Defendant, whose address Plaintiff has been able to determine. Drey Decl. at ¶¶ 5-6.
Therefore, Plaintiff will send copies of the summons, complaint and order for
publication to Defendant at his last known address as well as at his counsel’s address
in addition to publishing the summons.
Within Which to Effect Service of Process
Plaintiff Demonstrates Cause Permitting an Enlargement of Time
Plaintiff respectfully requests that, pursuant to Rule 6(b), the Court grant a sixty
(60) day enlargement of time within which to effect service of Summons and
“When an act may or must be done within a specified time,
the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (1) with or
without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is
made, before the original time or its extension expires . . .”
Fed. Rule Civ. P. 6(b). Plaintiff is to effect service of Summons and Complaint on
Defendant on or before September 3, 2011. Drey Decl. at ¶ 2. Accordingly, Plaintiff
submits its request for an enlargement of time before the expiration of the current
Moreover, “[d]istrict courts have broad discretion to extend time for service
under Rule 4(m). . . .[as] Rule 4’s 120-day time period for service ‘operates not as an
outer limit subject to reduction, but as an irreducible allowance.’” Efaw v. Williams,
473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) quoting Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S.
654, 661, 116 S. Ct. 1638, 134 L. Ed. 2d 880 (1996). Further, “‘Rule 4(m) explicitly
permits a district court to grant an extension of time to serve the complaint after that
120-day period.’” Id. quoting Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.
2003) (“On its face, Rule 4(m) does not tie the hands of the district court after the 120-
day period has expired.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), a district court is required
to grant an extension of time for service if good cause is shown and permitted to grant
such an extension even absent good cause. Mann, 324 F.3d at 1090, n. 2 citing
Henderson, 517 U.S. at 662.
Here, Plaintiff’s actions demonstrate good cause for granting an enlargement of
time to effect service upon the Defendant. First, Plaintiff has, in good faith, made
significant attempts to identify, locate and serve Defendant by September 3, 2011.
See Drey Decl. at ¶¶ 3-7. Since the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff has attempted
service on Defendant at multiple addresses, on numerous occasions, and through
various methods, but Defendant is currently evading and/or refusing service. Id.
Plaintiff has employed the investigative efforts of a process server who has attempted
service on Defendant at five (5) different addresses and on no less than nineteen (19)
occasions, including leaving copies of the service packet with contacts of Defendant.
Id. at ¶¶ 3-4, 7. Further, Plaintiff was contacted by counsel for Defendant regarding
this matter, but despite several discussions, counsel for Defendant refuses to accept
service for Defendant or sign a waiver of service. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. Additionally, Plaintiff
has attempted to secure an Acknowledgment of Service by mail, but Defendant has
thus far failed to return and is unlikely to return given the statements made by his
counsel. Id. at ¶ 8. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s efforts to effect service demonstrate its
good faith effort to diligently prosecute this Action and good cause for an enlargement
Second, Defendant will not suffer prejudice by virtue of the delayed service.
Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Plaintiff was to serve Defendant on or before
September 3, 2011. Drey Decl. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff requests only a brief extension within
which to effect service by publication and mail upon Defendant. Accordingly, this is
not a significant delay during which memories may fade or evidence be lost that
would prejudice Defendant, particularly when Defendant has notice of this lawsuit as
evidenced by Plaintiff’s communications with Defendant’s counsel. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6, 9;
but see Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d at 1041 (finding that an extraordinary delay of
seven years prejudiced Defendant).
Further, it is due to Defendant’s own actions that Plaintiff has not yet effected
service. Defendant’s conduct thus far has indicated he intends to continue to dodge
service in this matter. Defendant’s counsel has refused to accept service on
Defendant’s behalf, and counsel has also indicated that Defendant will vigorously
fight any attempt by Plaintiff to deem service as having been effected at one of the
previous addresses at which Plaintiff has left service of process. See Drey Decl. at ¶¶
5-6. Further, Defendant has refused to return the Acknowledgment of Service sent to
Defendant’s last known address. Id. at ¶ 8. Defendant should not be allowed to
benefit from his attempts to evade service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, Advisory
Committee Notes (“Relief may be justified…if the defendant is evading service”);
Motley v. Parks, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12479, at *17 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2001)
(same); see also Mid-Continent Wood Products, Inc. v. Harris, 936 F.2d 297, 303 (7th
Cir. 1990) citing Nikwei v. Ross School of Aviation, Inc., 822 F.2d 939, 942 (10th Cir.
1987) (refusal to accept mail constitutes evasion of service).
Finally, Plaintiff requires additional time to employ alternate means of service.
Personal service and substituted service attempts have proven ineffective thus far. See
Drey Decl. at ¶¶ 3-7. Plaintiff has also attempted service on Defendant by mail and
acknowledgment of receipt, but Defendant has thus far failed to return the
Acknowledgment. Id. at ¶ 8. Should the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte
Application and order service by publication, Plaintiff will be required to run the
publication for at least four weeks, pursuant to California Government Code § 6064.
Service is then deemed effective on the twenty-eighth day of publication. Id.; Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(c).
Thus, Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated good cause for an enlargement of time
within which to effect service of process on Defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court grant the
present motion to serve Defendant by publication and mail. Additionally, Plaintiff
respectfully requests this Court grant a sixty (60) day extension of time within which
to effect service of process.
DECLARATION OF NICOLE L. DREY
I, NICOLE L. DREY, declare as follows:
I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the
State of California and the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. I am an attorney for Plaintiff DC Comics (“DC”) (“Plaintiff”) in an action
styled DC Comics v. Mark Towle, et al., Case Number CV11-03934 RSWL (OPx).
Except as otherwise expressly stated to the contrary, I have personal knowledge of the
following facts and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify as
I am informed and believe that Plaintiff filed its Complaint on or about
May 6, 2011. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiffs are to serve Defendant on or before
I am informed and believe that since the filing of the Complaint until the
filing of this ex parte request, my office has spent a considerable amount of time and
resources tracing all known contact information for Defendant, including extensive
research on Lexis-Nexis and by other means to determine any and all possible aliases,
dba’s, email addresses, websites and physical locations. In connection therewith, I am
informed and believe that my office identified three (3) potential addresses for
Defendant – (1) ADDRESS A in Lake Elsinore, California; (2) ADDRESS B in
Corona, California; and (3) ADDRESS C in Temecula, California. I am informed and
believe that my office determined ADDRESS A to be the most likely address for
Defendant but provided the process server with all three addresses.
I am informed and believe that the process server attempted service at
ADDRESS B on one occasion but noted that the address was vacant. I am informed
and believe that the process server attempted service at ADDRESS C on two separate
occasions. During the second attempt, the process server was informed by the owner
that Defendant no longer resided at that address. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a
true and correct copy of the process server’s diligence report. I am informed and
believe that the process server attempted service at ADDRESS A on four (4) separate
occasions. Specifically, on or about June 1, 2011, the process server attempted to
serve Defendant at ADDRESS A. I am informed and believe that when the process
server asked for Defendant, an unidentified male stated that Defendant was not home.
I am further informed and believe that the process server then sub-served the
unidentified male. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the
process server’s diligence report.
On or about June 9, 2011, I received a telephone call from a Larry
Zerner, who purported to represent Defendant. Mr. Zerner stated that ADDRESS A
belonged to Defendant’s ex-wife and that Defendant had never lived at that address. I
noted to Mr. Zerner that the process server had asked the unidentified male who
answered the door if Defendant was home, and the male had answered no. Mr. Zerner
stated that he would look into the statements. I also asked if Mr. Zerner would be
willing to accept service or if Defendant would be willing to sign a waiver of service,
and Mr. Zerner stated that he would get back to me.
On or about June 20, 2011, I again spoke with Mr. Zerner. Mr. Zerner
stated that Defendant disputed the process server’s account of statements made by the
unidentified male at ADDRESS A. Mr. Zerner stated that Defendant would
vigorously fight any attempt by Plaintiff to claim that service had been properly made
at ADDRESS A. Mr. Zerner also stated that he would not accept service for
Defendant nor would Defendant sign a waiver of service unless Plaintiff agreed to a
license for Defendant’s actions.
I am informed and believe that my office continued to conduct significant
research into the whereabouts of Defendant. I am informed and believe that most of
my office’s research continued to point to ADDRESS A as belonging to Defendant. I
am further informed and believe that my office hired an investigator to research the
current address for Defendant. I am informed and believe that the investigator
discovered an additional potential addresses for Defendant – ADDRESS D in Santa
Ana, California, which appeared to be the current and most up-to-date address for
Defendant. I am informed and believe that my office also conducted additional
research and identified an alternative apartment number at the same building in Santa
Ana, California – ADDRESS E. I am informed and believe that my office then
provided these addresses to the process server who attempted service on both
apartments on multiple occasions. I am informed and believe that the process server
attempted service on ADDRESS D on at least three (3) separate occasions. On the
third attempt, I am informed and believe that the process server was informed by the
occupant that Defendant was unknown at that address. I am further informed and
believe that the process server attempted service on ADDRESS E on no less than nine
(9) separate occasions. I am informed and believe that on the last attempt, on or about
August 2, 2011m the process server spoke with a man named “Charles” who stated
that Defendant hadn’t lived in the complex for years. I am informed and believe that
the process server left a courtesy copy of the summons and complaint with Charles.
Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the process server’s
supplemental diligence report.
Having exhausted the addresses for personal service, I am informed and
believe that, on or about August 18, 2011, my office mailed the Summons, Complaint
and an Acknowledgment of Service to Defendant at ADDRESS D, the address
identified by Plaintiff’s hired investigator as being Defendant’s current residence.
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.30, Defendant is to return the
Acknowledgment by September 17, 2011. I am informed and believe that Defendant
has not yet returned the Acknowledgment. I am also informed and believe it is
unlikely Defendant will return the Acknowledgment given Defendant’s counsel’s
statements that Defendant would not sign a waiver.
The requested Order granting Plaintiff’s Application for an Order
Authorizing Service of Process on Defendant by Publication and Mail is Plaintiff’s
only remaining method available to effectively serve Defendant. I am informed and
believe that Defendant has notice of this action, based on the conversations with
Defendant’s counsel, but without the relief requested herein, Defendant will continue
to deliberately evade service in order to avoid responsibility for her illegal actions.
Should the Order be granted, Plaintiff will publish the Summons in the
Orange County Register. According to my office’s research, Defendant is a resident
of Santa Ana, California, and thus the Orange County Register is the “newspaper,
published in this state, that is most likely to give actual notice to the party to be
served,” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50. Plaintiff will run
the publication once a week for four successive weeks, pursuant to California
Government Code § 6064.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct under
Executed this 31st day of August, 2011, at Glendale, California.
_____/s Nicole L. Drey______________
EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT A PAGE 13
EXHIBIT “B” EXHIBIT B PAGE 16
EXHIBIT B PAGE 17
EXHIBIT B PAGE 18
EXHIBIT B PAGE 19
EXHIBIT “C” EXHIBIT C PAGE 20
On August 31, 2011, I served on the interested parties in this action with:
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF
PROCESS ON DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION AND MAIL AND REQUEST
FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECT SERVICE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT BY
PUBLICATION AND MAIL AND REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECT SERVICE
Executed on August 31, 2011, at Glendale, California
/s/ Jeremy Cordero