Tansy Development Company, Inc. v. Castle Vegtech, Inc.
- Pitts
- 5:22-cv-02936
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Tansy Development v. Castle Vegtech, Judge Pitts denied Tansy’s request to serve Castle Vegtech through California’s Secretary of State.
Tansy Development Company, Inc. must use another service approach or file a renewed request supported by additional efforts; Castle Vegtech, Inc. was not authorized to be served through the California Secretary of State by this order.
What happened
In Tansy Development Company, Inc. v. Castle Vegtech, Inc., Tansy asked to serve an amended complaint on Castle Vegtech through the California Secretary of State. No party opposed the request.
Castle Vegtech had been dissolved, and its listed agent for service, Jean Castle, had died. The court found that Tansy had not shown it used reasonable diligence to identify possible trustees of the dissolved corporation or its stockholders or members, including other Castle family members involved in the litigation.
Judge P. Casey Pitts denied Tansy’s motion. The court stated that Tansy could file a renewed request by December 2, 2024, if it chose to do so.
The detailed version
- Tansy Development Company, Inc. v. Castle Vegtech, Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-02936
- Pitts
- Nov. 12, 2024
Background
Tansy Development Company, Inc. asked for permission to serve its first amended complaint on Castle Vegtech, Inc. through the California Secretary of State. Castle Vegtech was a California corporation that had been dissolved since October 20, 2005. No party opposed Tansy’s motion.
The court reviewed Tansy’s papers and ordered Tansy to submit additional briefing about whether Castle Vegtech could be served with reasonable diligence under California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.20.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 allows service of process by following the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. California law permits service on a corporation through the Secretary of State in specified circumstances, including when an agent cannot be found with reasonable diligence.
Section 416.20(a) governs service on a dissolved corporation. It allows service by delivering the summons to a person who is a trustee of the dissolved corporation and of its stockholders or members.
Court’s analysis
Tansy submitted a declaration from attorney Craig Berman stating that Jean Castle was Castle Vegtech’s only current agent for service of process. Jean Castle had died on April 8, 2016. She had also been listed in the corporation’s last statement of information as its agent for service, chief executive officer, secretary, chief financial officer, and director.
Tansy stated that it did not know who Castle Vegtech’s stockholders or members were or whether they were living and available for service. Berman also stated that Tansy had been unable to locate an agent who could be served at the time of dissolution or afterward.
The court found that Tansy had shown only that it reviewed Castle Vegtech’s public filings with the California Secretary of State. Tansy had not shown that it tried to identify trustees of the corporation or of its stockholders or members. The court noted that many Castle family members were parties to the litigation, but Tansy had not shown that it tried to determine whether any of those people were trustees of Castle Vegtech.
Disposition
The court DENIED Tansy’s motion to serve process on Castle Vegtech through the California Secretary of State. The court stated that Tansy could file a renewed request for that method of service by December 2, 2024, if it chose to do so.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.