Gofron et al v. Picsel Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 51

ORDER re 49 Plaintiff's Plan for Service. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/29/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2010)

Gofron et al v. Picsel Technologies, Inc. et al

Doc. 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARRIE GOFRON, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 09-04041 CW ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' PLAN FOR SERVICE

PICSEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. /

On October 12, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs Carrie Gofron, et al., an additional sixty days to serve their complaint on Defendants Picsel Technologies, Inc. (PTI) and Hamsard Limited. The Court's Order directed Plaintiffs to file a plan for serving these Defendants, which Plaintiffs timely filed. Plaintiffs' explanation of how they intend to effect service is inadequate. Although they identify the legal authority under

which they intend to serve PTI and Hamsard, they do not offer any dates by which they will take steps to attempt to effect service. Indeed, their proposed methods of service require additional orders from the Court. Plaintiffs propose to serve PTI pursuant to California Corporations Code section 1702(a), which requires a court order authorizing service on PTI through the California Secretary of State. Such an order will issue only if Plaintiffs establish,

through an affidavit, "that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence" under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 416.10(a)-(c) or 416.20(a). "Service

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State." Cal. Corp. Code § 1702(a).

Plaintiffs do not state when they intend to file their affidavit of reasonable diligence with the Court. Plaintiffs intend to serve Hamsard by employing "accepted procedures for service in Guernsey, or particular methods authorized under the Hague Convention." Plaintiffs indicate that

they might serve Hamsard through letters rogatory, an approach countenanced by the Hague Convention. be obtained from the Court. Such letters, however, must

Plaintiffs do not state when they will

request letters rogatory, if they intend to do so. Because Plaintiffs' proposed methods of service require additional action by the Court, they shall, by November 10, 2010, file any request for an order necessary to effect service. Further, within three days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file a more detailed plan that explains how they intend to effect service and, in particular, provides dates by which they will take the steps necessary to fulfill their plan. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/29/2010

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

2