Board of Trustees for the Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Northern…

Background

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) for default judgment against P & J Utility Company. At a prior hearing, the court ordered them to provide additional evidence showing that P&J had been properly served and supporting the proposed interest rate and liquidated-damages amounts.

The plaintiffs had made several unsuccessful service attempts. They later served Christopher Miller at an address in Los Olivos, California and sent copies by first-class mail. The plaintiffs argued that this amounted to substitute service on P&J. They also submitted evidence that Miller had signed contribution reports and checks for P&J and that mail connected with P&J had been sent to the plaintiffs’ counsel.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the supplemental briefing did not establish that service had been effectuated. It noted that the plaintiffs relied on California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), which concerns substitute service on an individual, even though P&J is a corporation.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1) permits service on a domestic corporation through methods allowed by Rule 4(e)(1), including methods authorized by the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. Under California law, a corporation may be personally served through its designated service agent or specified corporate officers and representatives. California law also permits substitute service by delivering the summons and complaint during usual office hours to the person apparently in charge at the relevant office or mailing address, followed by mailing a copy to that address.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not explained how Christopher Miller fit within the categories of people authorized to receive personal service for P&J. They had not established that he was P&J’s designated service agent, an applicable corporate officer, or another person authorized to receive service. They also had not identified who was authorized to receive service and explained how service on Miller qualified as substitute service on P&J.

The court further found that the plaintiffs’ cited cases were distinguishable because some concerned service on individuals and another concerned service on an individual authorized to receive service for a corporation. The plaintiffs’ evidence that P&J or someone connected with it may have received documents did not, as presented, establish compliance with the applicable service requirements.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit additional briefing and evidence by May 31, 2023, addressing the deficiencies or presenting a new theory showing that P&J was properly served. The plaintiffs must identify the type of service, the applicable statute, the elements of that type of service, and the evidence supporting each element. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu also ordered the plaintiffs to serve P&J with the order immediately and file proof of service. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment.