Sunset Licensing LLC v. Azuga, Inc.

Background

Sunset Licensing LLC applied for permission to use an alternative method to serve Azuga, Inc. with the summons and complaint. It said it had been unable to complete service since filing the complaint on March 31, 2020. Sunset Licensing specifically asked to post the summons and complaint at the front door or main entrance of the address it had identified as Azuga’s address. The filing also referred to service by publication and requested more time to complete service and changes to other deadlines.

Service rules

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 permits service on a corporation through methods authorized for serving an individual or by delivering the summons and complaint to an agent authorized to receive service. It also permits service under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. The court explained that California law permits certain substitute methods, including leaving the documents at a person’s dwelling with a competent adult household member and then mailing them. The court found that Sunset Licensing had not identified any federal or California law authorizing posting the summons and complaint on a front door. It also noted that Sunset Licensing had not apparently tried other service methods authorized by federal or California law.

The court separately addressed service by publication. California law requires an affidavit and a showing that the defendant cannot be served by another specified method after reasonable diligence. The court found that Sunset Licensing had submitted neither the required affidavit nor enough detail about its service attempts to show reasonable diligence. It therefore found the request for alternative service premature and concluded that service by publication was not proper in this case.

Ruling

The court denied Sunset Licensing’s application for alternative service. It granted Sunset Licensing’s request for a 30-day extension under Rule 4(m), measured from the date of the order, to complete service. The court cited the difficulties of personal service during the COVID-19 pandemic and related shelter-in-place orders, as well as its discretion to extend the service deadline even without a showing of good cause. Proof of service was due by July 15, 2020. The court also reset the case-management conference from July 2 to August 27, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., and set August 17, 2020, as the deadline for the parties’ joint statement. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.