Sepulveda v. Cong
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-02172
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sepulveda v. Cong, Judge Westmore ordered supplemental briefing before deciding Sepulveda’s default-judgment motion because service on several defendants appeared defective.
Richard Sepulveda and the defendants other than Hien Quyen Cong whose service the court questioned, including Truong Duy Nguyen, Hung Thanh Nguyen, Thanh Truong Nguyen, and Anhhang Thi Pham.
What happened
In Sepulveda v. Cong, Richard Sepulveda asked the court to enter default judgment against the defendants.
The court said service on defendants other than Hien Quyen Cong appeared defective. Sepulveda had relied on substitute service for four defendants, but the record did not show earlier attempts to personally serve them.
Judge Westmore ordered Sepulveda to file supplemental briefing by July 30, 2020. The court asked for evidence of earlier personal-service attempts, an explanation of whether service was adequate, and Sepulveda’s preference between continuing the default-judgment motion or withdrawing it and properly serving the remaining defendants.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. Cong · No. 3:20-cv-02172
- William Orrick
- July 20, 2020
Background
Richard Sepulveda filed a motion for default judgment. The court reviewed that motion and concluded that service on defendants other than Hien Quyen Cong appeared defective.
Sepulveda stated that Truong Duy Nguyen, Hung Thanh Nguyen, Thanh Truong Nguyen, and Anhhang Thi Pham had been served by substitute service under California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20. That provision allows substitute service on an individual when the summons and complaint cannot be personally delivered despite reasonable diligence. The court noted that California decisions generally treat two or three attempts at personal service at a proper location as ordinarily sufficient to show reasonable diligence. The record, however, contained no evidence that any prior attempts at personal service had been made.
Order
The court did not decide the motion for default judgment. Instead, Judge Westmore required supplemental briefing. The court asked Sepulveda to address whether he had evidence of prior attempts at personal service, whether service on defendants other than Cong was adequate, and whether he would prefer to continue seeking default judgment or withdraw the motion and properly serve the remaining defendants if the court found service inadequate. Sepulveda’s supplemental brief was due July 30, 2020.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses the adequacy of service and requests additional briefing; it does not decide the underlying default-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.