Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ACCELERANT SPECIALTY Case No.: 25-cv-2233-WQH-MSB INSURANCE COMPANY; 12 HADRON SPECIALTY ORDER 13 INSURANCE COMPANY; PALOMAR EXCESS AND 14 SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE 15 COMPANY; TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY; and 16 LLOYD’S SYNDICATES PER 17 UMR B0507G02400002, Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 20 MAVERICK INVESTMENTS, LLC, 21 Defendant. 22 HAYES, Judge: 23 On August 27, 2025, Plaintiffs Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company; Hadron 24 Specialty Insurance Company; Palomar Excess and Surplus Insurance Company; Texas 25 Insurance Company; and Lloyd’s Syndicates with UMR B0507G02400002 (collectively, 26 “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint against Defendant Maverick Investments, LLC 27 28 1 (“Defendant”) seeking declaratory judgment related to an insurance agreement. (ECF No. 2 1.) 3 On November 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the pending Motion for Order Authorizing 4 Service of Process (ECF No. 4) requesting that the Court authorize service of process on 5 Defendant by hand delivery of the Summons and Complaint to the California Secretary of 6 State. Plaintiffs represent that they “have been unable to personally serve the Summons 7 and Complaint in this action on an agent, officer, and/or chief executive officer” of 8 Defendant. (ECF No. 4-1 at 2.) Plaintiffs represent that they were unable to identify contact 9 information for Defendant via the digital records of the California Secretary of State and 10 arranged to have the Summons and Complaint served on the Defendant’s address listed in 11 their insurance agreement. Id. at 3–4. Service was unsuccessful. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs represent 12 that they subsequently attempted to serve the Summons and Complaint to two addresses 13 associated with Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer that were obtained via a “paid legal 14 data base[],” but service was again unsuccessful. Id. at 4–5. 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 provides that a corporation, like an individual, 16 may be served by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts 17 of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 4(e)(1), 4(h). California law provides that, “if no agent has been designated, and it is shown 19 by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation 20 cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand” pursuant 21 to the California Code of Civil Procedure, then a court may “make an order that the service 22 be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State . . . one copy 23 of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing 24 such service.” Cal. Corp. Code § 1702(a). 25 To determine whether a plaintiff has exercised “reasonable diligence” in their 26 attempts to serve a defendant, the Court considers “whether the plaintiff took the steps a 27 reasonable person who truly desired to give notice of the action would have taken under 28 the circumstances.” Rios v. Singh, 65 Cal. App. 5th 871, 880–81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). 1 || Typically, “two or three attempts at personal service at a proper place should fully satisfy 2 || the requirement of reasonable diligence and allow substituted service to be made.” Voltstar 3 || Techs. v. Motek Team, Inc., No. 25-CV-01861-BAS-KSC, 2025 WL 3124126, at *2 (S.D. 4 ||Cal. Nov. 7, 2025) (quoting Trackman vy. Kenney, 187 Cal. App. 4th 175, 185 (Cal. Ct. 5 || App. 2010)). Plaintiffs represent that, after failing to identify Defendant’s designated agent 6 || via the California Secretary of State’s online database, they attempted to serve Defendant’s 7 || Chief Executive Officer at three known addresses on eight total occasions. (ECF No. 4 at 8 ||4-5.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ utilization of publicly available information and 9 ||repeated attempts to serve Defendant at multiple locations indicate that they acted with 10 |/reasonable diligence in their attempts to serve Defendant. The Court now authorizes 11 || Plaintiffs to serve Defendant in accordance with California Corporations Code § 1702(a). 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Authorizing Service 13 ||of Process (ECF No. 4) is granted. Plaintiffs shall serve Defendant Maverick Investments, 14 || LLC by delivering the Summons, Complaint, and a copy of this Order to the California 15 ||Secretary of State pursuant to the requirements of the California Corporations Code 16 |} § 1702(a). 17 18 19 Dated: December 5, 2025 Nitta Ze. Ma 20 Hon, William Q. Hayes 1 United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28