Castillo-Antonio v. Kang
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-01810
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Castillo-Antonio v. Kang, Magistrate Judge Corley questioned service and ordered Castillo-Antonio to explain before considering default judgment.
The order affected Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio’s request for default judgment against James H. Kang and Eastgate Enterprise, Inc.; the court required more information about service and vacated the scheduled hearing.
What happened
In Castillo-Antonio v. Kang, Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio asked for default judgment against James H. Kang and Eastgate Enterprise, Inc.
The court questioned whether Eastgate had been properly served. The papers identified one address for Eastgate’s service agent, but the proof of service described leaving the papers with Kang at a different address and mailing them there. The filing did not explain what efforts had been made to serve the agent directly before using substitute service.
The court ordered Castillo-Antonio to explain in writing by August 20, 2020 whether service was adequate and vacated the August 13 default-judgment hearing. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley did not decide the default-judgment motion in this order.
The detailed version
- Castillo-Antonio v. Kang · No. 3:20-cv-01810
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 29, 2020
Background
Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio moved for default judgment against James H. Kang doing business as Food Mart and Food Barn, and against Eastgate Enterprise, Inc. Before deciding whether to enter default judgment, the court had to determine whether the defendants had been properly served with the summons and complaint.
Service issue
The summons listed Eastgate Enterprise’s name and address as 18000 Studebaker Road #380, Cerritos, California 90803. The California Secretary of State’s website listed Jae S. Cho as Eastgate Enterprise’s agent for service of process at 18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 585, Cerritos, California 90703.
The proof of service stated that the papers were served on Cho through substitute service: copies were left with James Kang, identified as a manager, at 1835 Rumrill Boulevard, San Pablo, California 94806. The papers were also mailed to Cho at that San Pablo address. Castillo-Antonio’s motion did not address why service occurred at a different address or why substitute service was made on Kang rather than directly on the listed service agent.
The court explained that substitute service may be valid, but generally requires reasonable diligence in attempting direct service first. The record did not describe any efforts to serve Eastgate’s agent at the address listed for that agent.
Order
The court ordered Castillo-Antonio to show cause in writing by August 20, 2020 why service should be considered adequate. It vacated the August 13, 2020 hearing on the default-judgment motion. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.