TrustLabs, Inc. v. An
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-02606
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In TrustLabs, Inc. v. An, Judge Breyer denied An’s motion to quash service after finding Texas was his usual place of abode.
TrustLabs, Inc. and Daniel Jaiyong An; the court upheld service at the Texas address and denied An’s motion to quash.
What happened
TrustLabs, Inc. v. An involved TrustLabs’ lawsuit against Daniel Jaiyong An under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act. TrustLabs served An by leaving the summons and complaint with his mother at his parents’ Texas home and also mailing them there.
An argued that service was improper because he had moved to Taiwan and the Texas address was no longer his usual place of abode. TrustLabs pointed to An’s use of that address in its human-resources system, his mailing company property from there, and his receipt of mail there.
The court found the Texas address had enough evidence of permanence and was a place where service could reasonably notify An of the lawsuit. Judge Charles R. Breyer denied An’s motion to quash; the opinion did not separately resolve the personal-jurisdiction argument.
The detailed version
- TrustLabs, Inc. v. An · No. 3:21-cv-02606
- Charles Breyer
- July 23, 2021
Background
TrustLabs sued Daniel Jaiyong An under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act. TrustLabs alleged that, after it asked An to resign as its chief executive officer and president, he deleted the company’s internal Slack messaging system. TrustLabs also demanded the return of company devices, which An mailed from a Texas address.
TrustLabs attempted service by leaving the summons and complaint with An’s mother at his parents’ home in Frisco, Texas, and by mailing copies to that address. An moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or to quash service.
Arguments
An argued that the Texas address was not his usual place of abode because he had moved to Taiwan in December 2020. He relied on a text message stating that he was in Frisco visiting his parents and would then go to Taiwan when borders reopened, as well as a Facebook post stating, “Moved to Taipei, Taiwan.”
TrustLabs argued that the Texas address remained An’s usual place of abode. It relied on An’s changing his address to Texas in the company’s human-resources system, his mailing company property from that address, and his receiving his 2020 tax form there.
Court’s reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(B) permits service by leaving the summons and complaint at a person’s “dwelling or usual place of abode” with someone of suitable age and discretion who lives there. The court explained that this inquiry is fact-specific and that a person may have more than one usual place of abode if each place has enough evidence of permanence.
The court concluded that the Texas address had sufficient evidence of permanence. An had changed his address to Texas in the company’s system, sent a package to TrustLabs from that address, and received mail there, including his 2020 tax form. The court also found that An had not directly told anyone at TrustLabs that he no longer lived at the Texas address. Even assuming the text message and Facebook post were admissible, the court found that they did not clearly show that the Texas address was no longer one of An’s usual places of abode. The court further found that serving An there was reasonably calculated to notify him of the lawsuit.
Disposition
The court denied An’s motion to quash. It did not address service under California law because it found service proper under the federal rule. The opinion’s reasoning and final order addressed the service challenge; it did not separately analyze or state a disposition for the personal-jurisdiction argument.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.