Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons Health and Welfare Trust Fund for…

Background

The plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was pending. Before granting that motion, the court had to determine whether the plaintiffs properly served Mercoza under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable California law.

The plaintiffs said they completed substitute service on October 8, 2024, at 1111 Broadway, Suite 300, Oakland, California. That address was a WeWork location. The proof of service said that the summons and complaint were left with an unnamed “John Doe,” described as the “Person in charge,” and that another copy was mailed to Mercoza at the same address on October 11, 2024.

The record also showed that process servers had previously tried to serve Mercoza at the same WeWork location. In July 2024, a WeWork receptionist said Mercoza was no longer at the address. In August 2024, a receptionist again said that nobody from Mercoza was there and that Jason Duran, identified as Mercoza’s chief executive officer, did not work there. Mercoza’s principal address on the California Secretary of State’s website had been changed to the WeWork address shortly before the second attempt.

Service-of-Process Concern

California law permits substitute service by leaving the summons and complaint with a person apparently in charge of a corporation’s office or mailing address and then mailing another copy. The court found the proof of service insufficient by itself because it gave no facts showing that the unnamed person was apparently in charge or authorized to accept service.

The court considered it likely that the person served in October was the WeWork receptionist who had previously said Mercoza was not located there. The court acknowledged that a receptionist can sometimes be a person apparently in charge, but found no indication on the existing record that this receptionist had authority to accept service for Mercoza, gave the documents to Mercoza, or understood the nature of the legal documents. The court also expressed similar concerns under the federal service rule for corporations because the record showed little about the receptionist’s relationship with Mercoza.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—meaning to provide an explanation with supporting declarations—why the receptionist was an appropriate person to accept service or otherwise show that service complied with Rule 4. The plaintiffs were ordered to respond by August 28, 2025.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why their motion for default judgment should not be denied for failure to establish effective service of process and why Mercoza’s default should not be set aside for the same reason. The opinion did not state that the motion was denied or that the default was set aside; it required the plaintiffs to respond before making those decisions.