California Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Greenbox Services…
California Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Greenbox Services LLC
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:21-cv-02237
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
California Service Employees v. Greenbox Services, Judge Beeler authorized serving Greenbox Services by certified mail and, if available, email.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs, who may use the authorized alternative service methods, and Greenbox Services LLC, which may be served by certified mail and potentially by email through its designated service agent.
What happened
In California Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Greenbox Services LLC, the plaintiffs sued over unpaid contributions to an employee-benefit plan. They had been unable to personally serve Greenbox Services’ designated service agent, James Harris, after trying his listed residence and the company’s business address.
The plaintiffs asked to serve the company by mail. The court explained that California law permits alternative service when the designated agent cannot reasonably be found at the listed address and the method is reasonably likely to provide actual notice.
Judge Laurel Beeler granted the application. She authorized service on Greenbox Services by certified mail and also authorized service by email if the plaintiffs could obtain an email address for Harris.
The detailed version
- California Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Greenbox Services… · No. 3:21-cv-02237
- Laurel Beeler
- May 17, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs, identified as trustees of an employee-benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, sued Greenbox Services LLC for unpaid plan contributions. They first attempted to serve Greenbox Services through its designated agent for service of process, James Harris, who the opinion also identifies as the company’s chief executive officer and president.
A process server went to Harris’s listed address three times—on April 6, April 14, and April 18, 2021—but received no response. The process server also went to Greenbox Services’ listed business address on April 23 and April 26. No one answered on the first visit, and the unit appeared completely empty on the second. The plaintiffs then requested permission to serve the summons and complaint by mail.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) allows service on an individual defendant by methods permitted under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service occurs. The court explained that California law provides several service methods, including personal delivery, substitute service, service by mail with acknowledgment of receipt, certain forms of certified or registered mail, and publication.
The court also relied on California law allowing a court to direct service in a manner reasonably calculated to give the party actual notice. For an unincorporated association such as a limited liability company, California law generally permits service by delivering the summons and complaint to the designated service agent. When that agent cannot be found with reasonable diligence at the designated address, the court may authorize service by delivering the papers to a member and mailing them to the association’s last known address.
Ruling
The court found that the plaintiffs had made three attempts to serve Harris at his listed address and two attempts at Greenbox Services’ business address, without success. In light of those attempts, the court authorized service on Greenbox Services by certified mail. It also authorized service by email if the plaintiffs could obtain an email address for Harris.
The court granted the application to serve the defendant by mail. The opinion does not rule on whether Greenbox Services owed the claimed unpaid contributions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.