Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC v. Gafana Enterprises, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff moved for substituted service of process by certified mail to a registered agent address that a process server had previously reported as visibly vacant and out of business. The court denied the motion, finding the proposed method was not reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the lawsuit, and ordered plaintiff to file a renewed motion or face dismissal for failure to prosecute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for substituted service denied“The motion to serve Defendant in this manner is therefore DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the due process standard from Mullane and Rio Properties. The record explicitly states that the proposed address was 'visibly vacant' and the defendant had been out of business there for two years. Mailing to a known vacant address is not reasonably calculated to provide notice. The denial is supported by the facts recited in the order. |
Order to file renewed motion or face dismissal“Failure to file such a motion or otherwise demonstrate effective service on Defendant will result in the dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and enforce Rule 41(b) regarding failure to prosecute. Given the prior show cause orders and the failure to effect service, setting a deadline for renewed service or dismissal is a standard and appropriate procedural measure. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the legal standard for substituted service. It relies on the correct binding authority (Mullane and Rio Properties) and applies it logically to the specific facts provided (the address is vacant). There are no gaps in the reasoning regarding the denial of the specific motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SCANNING TECHNOLOGIES Case No.: 21-CV-657-CAB-MDD INNOVATIONS, LLC 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 11 SUBSTITUTED SERVICE v. 12 GAFANA ENTERPRISES, INC. [Doc. No. 8] 13 Defendant. 14 15 On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case, and a summons was 16 issued on the following day. When no activity appeared on the docket after 90 days, the 17 Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismiss for failure 18 to prosecute. [Doc. No. 5.] Plaintiff responded that it had had difficulty locating a proper 19 address for service on Defendant, but that it had a new address and was attempting service. 20 Another month then passed with no other activity on the docket, so the Court again ordered 21 Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 22 [Doc. No. 7.] 23 In response to this second order to show cause, Plaintiff now moves for substituted 24 service on Defendant by serving Defendant’s registered agent by certified mail, return 25 receipt requested. “[A] method of service of process must . . . comport with constitutional 26 notions of due process. To meet this requirement, the method of service crafted by the 27 district court must be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 28 1 ||interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present 2 || their objections.’” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016-17 (9th 3 || Cir. 2002) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) 4 ||(Jackson, J.)). Here, the address to which Plaintiff proposes to mail the summons and 5 ||complaint is the same address where a process server attempted to personally serve 6 || Defendant and reported that the location was “[v]isibly vacant” and that an employee of a 7 ||neighboring business reported that Defendant had been out of business at that location for 8 ||two years. [Doc. No. 8-2 at 2.] Accordingly, mailing the summons and complaint to this 9 ||same address is not reasonably calculated to apprise Defendant of the existence of this 10 lawsuit. The motion to serve Defendant in this manner is therefore DENIED. 1] On or before, August 27, 2021, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for substituted 12 service in a manner that is reasonably calculated to apprise Defendant of the existence of 13 lawsuit. Failure to file such a motion or otherwise demonstrate effective service on 14 || Defendant will result in the dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice for failure to 15 || prosecute. 16 It is SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: August 20, 2021 € 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28