Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-01520
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Judge Koh authorized alternative service on Saratoga and deemed service on Pallone sufficient.
The ruling affects Louis Floyd’s ability to proceed with service of process on Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc. and Thomas Pallone; it does not decide the Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims.
What happened
In Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc., Louis Floyd asked the court to approve different methods for serving Saratoga Diagnostics and Thomas Pallone in a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Floyd’s process server made nine attempts to serve Pallone and Saratoga at Pallone’s home address. Floyd also mailed the complaint and summons several times; Pallone refused one certified mailing, and Saratoga did not acknowledge or return another mailing.
Judge Lucy Y. Koh granted both requests. She authorized service on Saratoga through the California Secretary of State and ruled that service on Pallone was sufficient because the repeated attempts gave him actual notice and he was evading service.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-01520
- Maxine Chesney
- Aug. 5, 2020
Background
Louis Floyd filed a putative class action alleging that Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas Pallone, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The opinion addresses service of process—the formal delivery of the complaint and summons—not the merits of those allegations.
Saratoga’s California corporate registration listed Pallone as its Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, and agent for service of process. It also listed Pallone’s home address as the address for service on Saratoga.
During March and April 2020, Floyd’s process server made nine attempts, at different times and on different days, to serve Pallone and Saratoga at that address. On one visit, a person identified as “John Doe,” described as a co-occupant, said Pallone was unavailable. The process server left the complaint and summons with John Doe. Floyd also mailed documents to Pallone and Saratoga. Pallone did not acknowledge or return the first mailing and later refused a court-authorized certified mailing. Saratoga did not acknowledge or return the mailing sent to it.
Earlier service ruling
The court had previously denied Floyd’s request to serve Saratoga through the California Secretary of State without prejudice, meaning the request could be renewed. The court found that Floyd had shown unsuccessful efforts under four statutory service methods but had not adequately documented the unsuccessful attempt to serve Saratoga by mail. The court allowed Floyd to renew the request with an affidavit addressing that deficiency. The court separately authorized service on Pallone by certified mail.
Current ruling
The court found that Floyd’s new affidavit cured the earlier deficiency by documenting that service by mail was not possible with reasonable diligence. It therefore granted Floyd’s request to serve Saratoga through the California Secretary of State under California Corporations Code section 1702(a). The court ordered Floyd to complete that service and file proof of service by September 28, 2020.
The court also granted Floyd’s request to find service on Pallone sufficient. It found that Pallone was evading service, had received the complaint, summons, and case-initiation documents at least four times, and therefore had actual notice. The court deemed service on Pallone completed by July 13, 2020.
Judge Lucy Y. Koh’s order granted both requests. It did not decide whether the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.