District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Keys

Background

Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was pending. A default judgment is a judgment requested because a defendant has not responded to the case. Before deciding that motion, the court identified two problems requiring additional evidence or briefing.

Service of process

The court explained that plaintiffs had to show that they properly served Sidney Keys before the court could grant default judgment. Plaintiffs’ certificate of service said that a process server left the summons, complaint, and other documents with Keys’s brother, identified as “John Doe,” at an address in Vallejo, California, and later mailed documents to that address.

Under the federal service rule discussed by the court, leaving the papers at a person’s home with someone of suitable age and discretion who lives there can be effective service. The court found the existing proof sufficient to show that Keys’s brother met those requirements, but only if the Vallejo address was actually Keys’s residence.

The court found no evidence in the current record establishing that the Vallejo address was Keys’s residence. The complaint did not state where Keys lived, and the other materials generally identified a business address in Oakland or failed to explain how plaintiffs determined that the Vallejo address was Keys’s home. The court therefore could not determine whether service was effective under the federal rule.

The court also discussed California’s alternative substitute-service procedure. That procedure requires reasonable diligence in trying to make personal service first. Although the certificate of service indicated that a declaration of diligence was attached, no such declaration appeared on the docket. If plaintiffs rely on the California procedure, the court directed them to provide evidence of reasonable diligence and explain how they determined that the address was Keys’s residence.

Collection-procedures document

Plaintiffs also relied on a partially redacted document describing collection procedures. The court questioned whether it could rely on that document because its title was ambiguous and because redactions covered portions of provisions on which plaintiffs relied.

The court directed plaintiffs to address the document’s title, including whether a term in the title was a typographical or technological error and whether the document applied to this case. The court also directed plaintiffs to file an unredacted version, while allowing them to seek permission to file it under seal if they believed public disclosure would cause a compelling harm.

Ruling and next steps

The court ordered plaintiffs to show why their motion for default judgment should not be denied for failure to establish effective service and why Keys’s default should not be set aside for the same reason. It also ordered plaintiffs to show why the court should not disregard the collection-procedures document. The court did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment in this order. The response was due August 8, 2025, and the hearing was continued to September 9, 2025. Judge A. J. Cisneros signed the order.