Bhs Law LLP v. Worldex Industry and Trading Co., Ltd.

Background

Bhs Law LLP sued Worldex Industry and Trading Co., Ltd. and Luis Mendoza. The complaint alleges interference with contract connected to the termination of Bhs Law’s relationship with West Coast Quartz Corporation. The court’s order addressed only Bhs Law’s request to serve Mendoza by an alternative method.

Worldex had been served, but Mendoza had not. Bhs Law tried to serve Mendoza at two residential addresses. At one address, the resident said she had lived there for three years, did not know Mendoza, and had previously received his mail. The other residence was vacant and had a for-sale sign. Bhs Law also emailed Melissa Grant, Mendoza’s attorney of record in an earlier California state-court action, asking whether she still represented Mendoza and could accept or waive service. She had not responded when Bhs Law filed the request.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) permits service on an individual in the United States by methods allowed under the law of the state where the federal court sits. California law permits a court to order another method that is reasonably calculated to give the person actual notice. Courts may allow email service when the plaintiff has made reasonably diligent efforts to serve the defendant and the proposed email method is reasonably likely to provide notice. The method must also satisfy due-process requirements by giving the defendant notice of the case and an opportunity to respond.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Bhs Law showed reasonable diligence. It had used address information, hired process servers, attempted service at the Union City and Hollister addresses, and contacted Mendoza’s former attorney.

The court also found that email service through Grant was reasonably calculated to notify Mendoza. Grant had represented Mendoza and was involved in efforts to collect a judgment in the state-court action. Based on those facts, the court found it reasonable to infer that Grant remained in communication with Mendoza. The court also noted evidence suggesting that Mendoza might be avoiding service, although it said that evidence was not conclusive.

Ruling

The court granted Bhs Law’s motion for alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 413.30. Bhs Law may email the summons, complaint, and order to Grant, with instructions that she forward them to Mendoza. Bhs Law must also mail a physical copy of the summons and complaint to Mendoza’s last known address.

The order does not decide the alleged contract interference claims. It also mentions Worldex’s motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to quash service, but this order does not rule on that motion.