Davis v. Rebel Creamery LLC

Background

Angela Davis and Bonnie Bennett brought a proposed class action against Rebel Creamery LLC. They allege that Rebel falsely marketed its ice cream as nutritious, healthful, and healthier than similar products. Their complaint asserts claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs said a process server could not complete service at Rebel’s registered address because it was a United States post office. A later attempt at a residential address used by Rebel on trademark documents also failed because the address was inside a gated community. The plaintiffs asked to use alternative service by mailing the summons and complaint to Rebel, care of Austin Archibald, at the residential address and the post-office-box address.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) governs service on corporations. It allows service under the law of either the state where the federal court is located or the state where service will occur. The court explained that California law permits service on an out-of-state corporation by sending the summons and complaint by first-class mail with a return receipt requested. California law requires the mailing to be directed to an appropriate person serving the corporation, such as its chief executive officer, general manager, or a person authorized to receive service. The court also noted that California law does not prohibit using a post-office box when it is the address most likely to provide actual notice.

Ruling

The court found the request for alternative service premature because the plaintiffs had not shown that they had attempted service under California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40. The court ordered the plaintiffs to complete service under that provision at the two listed addresses, directed them to include an acknowledgment form, a prepaid return envelope, and a copy of the order, and extended the service deadline to December 16, 2022.

The court denied without prejudice the motion for alternative service. It stated that any renewed request would need to identify legal authority supporting the proposed method of service, including relevant statutes and cases. The court also continued the case management conference to January 26, 2023, and adjusted related deadlines.