Aleman v. ASM Global at Moscone Center

Background

Darlene Aleman sued ASM Global at Moscone Center, referred to in the opinion as SMG, over alleged violations of rights under her collective-bargaining agreement after SMG terminated her employment. SMG removed the case from state court to federal court, asserting that the claims were displaced by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because they arose from the agreement.

The court had previously dismissed an earlier complaint because SMG and the union had settled the grievance and Aleman had returned to work, and because the claims were displaced by the federal labor law. The court allowed Aleman to amend her complaint to assert a hybrid Section 301 claim against the union, which would require showing that the union breached its duty to represent her fairly. Aleman then filed an amended complaint adding Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as a defendant. SMG filed a motion to dismiss, but this order addresses service on SEIU rather than the merits of that motion.

Service Attempts and Legal Standard

Aleman proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. The court authorized the U.S. Marshal to serve process. The Marshal attempted service at the address Aleman provided for SEIU and at another address listed for service on the California Secretary of State’s website. Both attempts failed. The Marshal was then directed to a law firm that represents unions and presumably represents SEIU, but the firm refused to accept service and provided no other information.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 allows service on an entity by methods permitted under applicable state law. California law permits a court to direct an alternative method when it is reasonably calculated to give the party actual notice. The opinion explains that courts have authorized email service in circumstances involving failed or evaded service when email would likely provide actual notice.

Ruling

Judge Laurel Beeler found good cause for alternative service because the in-person attempts had failed, including an attempt at SEIU’s listed service address. The order:

- directs defense counsel to email SEIU’s counsel a copy of the order, earlier service-related orders, and the consent notice, and to provide proof of service within two business days; - requires Aleman to provide the court with a service email address for SEIU within two business days if she can obtain one from her union representative; - authorizes the U.S. Marshal to serve SEIU by first-class mail at the three addresses listed in the order; and - provides that, if viable email addresses are received, the court will authorize service by email as well.

The Marshal must file proof of service. The service packet must include the amended complaint, specified service-related orders, the earlier dismissal order, SMG’s motion to dismiss, and this order.