Dunmore v. Dunmore

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/20/12 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION for leave to serve Defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald, Kathleen L . Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments, LLC, with process by publication, filed 7/6/12 44 is GRANTED; Defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald, Kathleen L. Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-M iami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments, LLC, shall be served by publication. Within seven (7) days of this order, plaintiff shall make arrangements to publish summons for defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald, Kathleen L. Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amber wood Investments, LLC, in the Sacramento Bee newspaper once a week for four successive weeks, and shall file a declaration indicating when the notices will be published. Service will be deemed complete as provided in Cal. Govt Code § 6064. Wi thin seven (7) days of this order, plaintiff shall send copies of the summons, operative complaint, and this order for publication to defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Do nald, Kathleen L. Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments, LLC, via mail at all of their known mailing add resses. Furthermore, a copy of the summons, the second amended complaint, and this order for publication shall be forthwith sent to defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donal d, Kathleen L. Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments, LLC, at any additional addresses ascertained before expiration of the time prescribed for publication of the summons. Pursuant to Plaintiff's request, filed 8/14/12 65 defendant Financial Title Company is DISMISSED with prejudice from this Action. (Mena-Sanchez, L).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

STEVEN G. DUNMORE,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. 2:11-cv-2867 MCE GGH PS

vs.
JEREMY A. DUNMORE, et al.,
ORDER

14
Defendants.
15
16
17

/
Presently before the court is plaintiff Steven G. Dunmore’s motion to permit

18

service of summons by publication, filed July 16, 2012, plaintiff’s notice of dismissal of

19

defendant Financial Title Company, filed August 14, 2012, and plaintiff’s request for

20

clarification, filed August 14, 2012.

21

I. Motion for Service of Summons by Publication

22

On May 10, 2012, this court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s “ex parte

23

application for order allowing service of summons by publication and by other means.” By order

24

of June 18, 2012, plaintiff was informed of the standards required to obtain service by

25

publication, and directed to file a renewed motion to serve by publication. Plaintiff’s renewed

26

motion has now been filed and reviewed.
1

1

A plaintiff may serve an individual by “following state law for serving a summons

2

in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located

3

or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). In California, “[a] summons may be served

4

by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is

5

pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner

6

specified in this article and that either: (1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom

7

service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action....” Cal. Civ. Proc.

8

Code § 415.50(a).

9
10

California’s service by publication statute further provides that:

16

The court shall order the summons to be published in a named
newspaper, published in this state, that is most likely to give actual
notice to the party to be served. If the party to be served resides or
is located out of this state, the court may also order the summons to
be published in a named newspaper outside this state that is most
likely to give actual notice to that party. The order shall direct that
a copy of the summons, complaint, and the order for publication be
forthwith mailed to the party if his or her address is ascertained
before expiration of the time prescribed for publication of the
summons. Except as otherwise provided by statute, the publication
shall be made as provided by Section 6064 of the Government
Code unless the court, in its discretion, orders publication for a
longer period.

17

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(b). “Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete as

18

provided in Section 6064 of the Government Code.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(c). Section

19

6064 of California’s Government Code, in turn, provides that: “[p]ublication of notice pursuant

20

to this section shall be once a week for four successive weeks. Four publications in a newspaper

21

regularly published once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening between the

22

respective publication dates not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. That period of

23

notice commences with the first day of publication and terminates at the end of the twenty-eighth

24

day, including therein the first day.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 6064.

11
12
13
14
15

25
26

Reasonable diligence requires that the plaintiff “took those steps which a
reasonable person who truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.”
2

1

McNamara v. Sher, 2012 WL 760531, *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012) (citation omitted).

2

The term ‘reasonable diligence’ takes its meaning from the former
law: it denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry
conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney. A
number of honest attempts to learn defendant’s whereabouts or his
address by inquiry of relatives, friends, and acquaintances, or of his
employer, and by investigation of appropriate city and telephone
directories, the voters’ register, and the real and personal property
index in the assessor’s office, near the defendant’s last known
location, are generally sufficient. These are likely sources of
information, and consequently must be searched before resorting to
service by publication.”

3
4
5
6
7
8

McNamara v. Lee, 2011 WL 4635618, *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011) (quoting Kott v. Superior

9

Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1137, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 215 (2d Dist.1996)). “Service by publication

10

is disfavored and is permitted only ‘as a last resort.’” Sher, 2012 WL 760531, at *2.

11

Plaintiff’s renewed motion now demonstrates his attempts to investigate and serve

12

defendants in accordance with these guidelines. The court finds that service by publication is

13

appropriate for individual defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette

14

Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald, and Kathleen L. Dunmore, as

15

demonstrated by plaintiff’s renewed motion.1 Plaintiff’s “amended and restated” declaration

16

demonstrates that he has attempted to serve these individual defendants several times by personal

17

and substituted service. He has also searched telephone directories, the internet, and real

18

property records. The process server’s declaration of diligence, filed with plaintiff’s motion,

19

confirms that attempts were made to serve these defendants personally at a known address. In

20

regard to individual defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore,2 Chady Evette

21

Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, and Shelli R. Donald, the process server encountered

22
1

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff has separately filed proofs of service with attached declarations by process
server Gary Pultz showing attempts at personal service, followed by substituted service on
defendants GSJ Company, LLC, Sidney D. Dunmore, and Jeremy A. Dunmore. (Dkt. nos. 6063.)
2

Additionally, in regard to Sidney D. Dunmore, plaintiff has submitted a letter from the
owner of Granite Bay Postal, indicating that this defendant formerly maintained a mailbox with
this business, but no longer has one, and has no forwarding address. (Dkt. no. 59, Ex. E.)
3

1

a person at the known address who stated either that he or she now occupied the premises and did

2

not know the defendant, or that the defendant no longer occupied the premises. In regard to

3

Kathleen L. Dunmore, the process server stated that the office premises were vacant and no new

4

address was posted. (Dkt. no. 46.)

5

In regard to corporate defendants GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP;

6

Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP;

7

Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments, LLC;3 plaintiff has now

8

demonstrated due diligence in service efforts, warranting service by publication. Not only has

9

plaintiff attempted personal and substituted service, but he has also searched telephone

10

directories, the internet, real property records, and California Secretary of State records. Plaintiff

11

has attached internet printouts from the California Secretary of State website for the

12

aforementioned corporate defendants which provides information such as the entity’s address, the

13

agent for service of process, and the entity’s status. The printouts state that although current as

14

of July 13, 2012, they are “not a complete or certified record of the entity.” (Dkt. no. 59, Ex. A.)

15

These printouts indicate that defendants GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC;

16

Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and

17

Amberwood Investments, LLC; are “active,” while only GSJ Company, LLC is “suspended.”

18

The declaration of plaintiff’s process server also reflects his attempts at service on

19

businesses GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; and Maximillion Capital, LLC. In all cases,

20

either the business office was vacant and no new address was posted, or the current tenant

21

informed him that the corporate defendant no longer occupied the premises. (Dkt. no. 46.) With

22

respect to defendants Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West

23

Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments, LLC; plaintiff and his process server have not

24

specifically shown attempts at service, but plaintiff’s declaration does outline the same general

25
26

3

Plaintiff is separately requesting dismissal of defendant Financial Title Company.
4

1

attempts at service as set forth above in regard to the other defendants. In regard to these four

2

business defendants, plaintiff states that they were located at the same address as Maximillion

3

Capital LLC and Kathleen Dunmore, and he has attached a printout from

4

www.corporationwiki.com indicating that these defendants are affiliated with Maximillion

5

Capital LLC and Kathleen Dunmore. (Dkt. no. 59, Ex. C.)

6
7

In the case of a corporation or other business entity, service must be effectuated in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h), which provides, in part, that:

8

Unless federal law provides otherwise or the defendant’s waiver
has been filed, a domestic or foreign corporation, or a partnership
or other unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a
common name, must be served:

9
10

(1) in a judicial district of the United States:
11
(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an
individual [which permits “following state law for serving a
summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in
the state where the district court is located or where service is
made”]; or

12
13
14

(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to
an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent
authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process
and – if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so
requires – by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant....

15
16
17
18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Service of process on a corporation under California law “may” be

19

effectuated by service on an agent designated for service of process; service on a president, chief

20

executive officer or other head of the corporation, vice president, secretary, assistant secretary,

21

treasurer, assistant treasurer, controller, chief financial officer, or general manager; or service on

22

a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

23

416.10. Alternatively, service may be effectuated by leaving a copy of the summons and

24

complaint during office hours with a “person who is apparently in charge,” and thereafter mailing

25

a copy of the summons and complaint by U.S. Mail. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20.

26

\\\\\
5

1

Corporations that have been suspended by California’s Secretary of State but

2

continue to operate as an ongoing business during the suspension, may be served pursuant to Cal.

3

Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10. Here, GSJ Company, LLC is represented as being suspended, but

4

there is no information concerning whether it is in active operation. See Gibble v. Car-Lene

5

Research, Inc., 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 302, 78 Cal. Rptr.2d 892, 896 (1998); Schwab v. Southern

6

California Gas Company, 114 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1320 n. 9, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 627, 635 n.9 (2004).

7

In any event, the statute permitting service by publication is not limited to

8

individual defendants but specifically refers to a “party.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50. Thus

9

far, all plaintiff’s service attempts have been unsuccessful. (See Dkt. No. 59.)

10

The court concludes that plaintiff has demonstrated the “reasonable diligence”

11

required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(a). Additionally, without prejudice to any future

12

motion to dismiss or other motion brought by these as yet unserved defendants, the court finds on

13

the present record before it that a cause of action exists against them. Therefore, given that

14

defendants last resided in the Sacramento Valley area, the court orders that the summons shall be

15

published in the Sacramento Bee newspaper along the terms specified below.

16

II. Dismissal of Defendant Financial Title Company

17

Plaintiff has requested that defendant Financial Title Company be dismissed with

18

prejudice. This defendant has not been served and has not made an appearance. Pursuant to Fed.

19

R. Civ. P. 41(a), defendant Financial Title Company will be dismissed.

20

III. Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification

21

Plaintiff seeks clarification of whether attorney Jeppson intends to continue

22

representation of defendant Garcia, despite this court’s order of August 9, 2012, based on

23

apparent inconsistent filings prior to that order, indicating that Jeppson was both withdrawing as

24

counsel and continuing his representation. (See Dkt. Nos. 48, 51, 55.) Plaintiff is informed that

25

until the August 9, 2012 order was issued, Mr. Jeppson was attorney of record for defendant

26

Garcia and properly represented him. E. D. Local Rule 182(d). Mr. Jeppson filed the notice of
6

1

appearance on July 24, 2012, because the Local Rules of this court required him to be listed as

2

counsel for service, and until that date, he had neglected to so list himself. E.D. Local Rule

3

182(c)(1). The August 9, 2012 order requires no further clarification.

4

CONCLUSION

5

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D.

7

Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald, Kathleen L.

8

Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition

9

Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood

10
11

Investments, LLC, with process by publication, filed July 16, 2012, (dkt. no. 44) is granted.
2. Defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore,

12

Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald, Kathleen L. Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC;

13

GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-

14

Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments, LLC, shall be served

15

by publication pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) and Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50.

16

3. Within seven (7) days of this order, plaintiff shall make arrangements to

17

publish summons for defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette

18

Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald, Kathleen L. Dunmore, GSJ

19

Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP;

20

Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments,

21

LLC, in the Sacramento Bee newspaper once a week for four successive weeks, and shall file a

22

declaration indicating when the notices will be published. Service will be deemed complete as

23

provided in Cal. Gov’t Code § 6064.

24

4. Within seven (7) days of this order, plaintiff shall send copies of the

25

summons, operative complaint, and this order for publication to defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore,

26

Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore, Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald,
7

1

Kathleen L. Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC; GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC;

2

Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and

3

Amberwood Investments, LLC, via mail at all of their known mailing addresses. Furthermore, a

4

copy of the summons, the second amended complaint, and this order for publication shall be

5

forthwith sent to defendants Jeremy A. Dunmore, Sidney D. Dunmore, Chady Evette Dunmore,

6

Kelly Houghton, Mary Neilson, Shelli R. Donald, Kathleen L. Dunmore, GSJ Company, LLC;

7

GSJ Company, LP; Maximillion Capital, LLC; Acquisition Venice, LP; Acquisition Phoenix-

8

Miami, LP; Acquisition West Hatcher, LP; and Amberwood Investments, LLC, at any additional

9

addresses ascertained before expiration of the time prescribed for publication of the summons.

10

5. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, filed August 14, 2012, (dkt. no. 65), defendant

11

Financial Title Company is dismissed with prejudice from this action.

12

DATED: September 20, 2012

13
14

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

15

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18

GGH/076
Dunmore2867.serv.pub.wpd

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8