Mango v. Special Automotive Solutions

Background

Gregory P. Mango brought a copyright-infringement case against Special Automotive Solutions. He moved for permission to serve the defendant through the California Secretary of State, stating that diligent efforts had not resulted in service because the defendant’s registered-agent information was inaccurate or the registered agent was avoiding service.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A) permits service on a corporation or other business entity by methods allowed under the law of the state where the federal district court is located or where service is made. Under California Corporations Code § 1702(a), a court may authorize service through the Secretary of State when the corporation’s service agent cannot reasonably be found at the designated address, and the plaintiff shows by affidavit that process cannot be served on the corporation with reasonable diligence.

The opinion explains that reasonable diligence may require attempts to serve both the corporation’s designated agent and the corporation itself, including a corporate officer. The court cited the company’s October 2022 statement of information, which named its corporate officers.

The plaintiff’s attempts

Mango declared that the defendant’s business address was also the registered agent’s address, that the address was a rentable office workspace, and that the company’s corporate statement of information was outdated. He attempted service at that address but found only an individual who was not associated with the defendant. He also tried to serve an individual with the same name as the registered agent at another address, but that person was not the registered agent.

Ruling

The court denied the motion. It found that Mango satisfied the first requirement because the registered agent could not be found at the designated address. But he had not satisfied the second requirement because he had not at least attempted to serve Special Automotive Solutions itself, such as by serving a corporate officer. The order denied service through the California Secretary of State and resolved ECF No. 11.