Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 7, 2024

The Board of Trustees v. Empire Engineering & Construction, Inc.

Judge
Donna Ryu
Docket
4:22-cv-04824
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In The Board of Trustees v. Empire Engineering, Magistrate Judge Ryu granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ service application, denying publication without prejudice but extending the service deadline.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs seeking to serve Empire Engineering & Construction, Inc., and the defendant whose service deadline was extended.

What happened

In The Board of Trustees v. Empire Engineering & Construction, Inc., the plaintiffs asked to serve the defendant by publishing notice and to extend the deadline for service by 60 days.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown the thorough efforts required to use publication as a last resort. Their papers also lacked supporting evidence that a legal claim existed, did not identify the newspaper for publication, and did not explain how publication there would likely give the defendant actual notice.

The court granted in part and denied in part the application. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu denied the request for service by publication without prejudice and extended the service deadline to March 7, 2024. The plaintiffs were directed to file a renewed motion or a status report by that date.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The Board of Trustees v. Empire Engineering & Construction, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-04824
Judge
Donna Ryu
Date
Feb. 7, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs asked for permission to serve Empire Engineering & Construction, Inc. with the summons and complaint by publication. They also asked for a 60-day extension of the deadline to serve the defendant.

Court’s Analysis

Under California law, service by publication is permitted only when the defendant cannot be served by another method despite reasonable diligence and when a legal claim exists against the defendant, or the defendant is a necessary or proper party. Because publication may not provide actual notice, courts treat it as a last resort.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ papers did not show reasonable diligence or exhaustive efforts to locate and serve the defendant. The court also found that counsel’s declaration lacked independent evidence supporting the existence of a claim against the defendant. In addition, the plaintiffs did not identify the newspaper in which they wanted to publish the summons or explain why publication there would likely give the defendant actual notice.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part the application. It denied the request to serve the defendant by publication without prejudice. The court extended the deadline to serve the defendant to March 7, 2024, and directed the plaintiffs to file a renewed motion or a status report by that date. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu stated that any renewed request would need to address the identified deficiencies.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.