Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
31
ORDER GRANTING 30 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE AND FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/7/2017. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/4/2017 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2017)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
KENNETH L. LENK,
Case No. 16-cv-02625-BLF
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
11
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
DEADLINE AND FOR SUBSTITUTED
SERVICE; CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
United States District Court
Northern District of California
[Re: ECF 30]
12
13
Plaintiff Kenneth L. Lenk brings this action against Defendants Monolithic Power
14
15
Systems, Inc. (“Monolithic”) and Maurice Sciammas (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged
employment discrimination and retaliation. Compl., ECF 1. Pursuant to this Court’s prior orders,
16
Plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to serve both Defendants. See Mot. for Extension of
17
Deadline & Substituted Service (“Mot.”), ECF 30. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to serve
18
both Defendants via alternative means. Id. Lenk also seeks an extension of time to serve all the
19
unserved defendants. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
20
21
I.
ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF SERVICE
Based on the exhibits and declarations attached to Lenk’s motion, Lenk has been
22
unsuccessful in his numerous attempts to personally serve Defendants. Lenk hired Kenneth T.
23
Smith, a licensed process server, to serve Defendants. A licensed process server working for the
24
same company as Smith attempted to personally serve Monolithic at its San Jose address during
25
business hours on five separate occasions. Appendix A-1 to Mot., ECF 30. The same company
26
attempted personal service on Sciammas at his business address on the same five occasions and
27
twice at his home address. Appendix A-2, A-3 to Mot., ECF 30.
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides the applicable authority for serving an
1
2
individual within a judicial district of the United States:
Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual – other than a
minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been
filed – may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
(1) 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 . . . .
3
4
5
6
To that end, Section 413.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states (emphasis
7
added):
8
Where no provision is made in this chapter or other law for the
service of summons, the court in which the action is pending may
direct that summons be served in a manner which is reasonably
calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served and that
proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court.
9
10
Because it appears that Defendants are attempting to evade service and because Lenk has
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
made substantial efforts to personally serve Defendants, the Court finds that in these
13
circumstances, service by mail would be “reasonably calculated to give actual notice” to
14
Defendants. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30. Accordingly, the Court will allow Lenk to serve
15
Defendants through the United States Postal Service via first-class mail (without a return receipt).1
16
To effectuate service, Lenk must mail each Defendant a copy of the summons, complaint, and this
17
order. Plaintiff must serve Monolithic at its place of business and through its agent, The
18
Corporation Trust Company. Plaintiff must serve Sciammas at his place of business and at his
19
residence. Plaintiff shall file an affidavit of service showing compliance with these requirements.
Because Lenk previously emailed Defendants a request to waive service and received a
20
21
response from Defendants’ counsel, the Court is satisfied that service by e-mail would be
22
“reasonably calculated to give actual notice” to Defendants. See Pl.’s Response to Judge
23
Freeman’s Order ¶ 11, ECF 19. Accordingly, Lenk shall also serve Defendants by e-mail. See
24
UnitedHealth Servs., Inc. v. Meyer, No. 12-6197, 2013 WL 843698, at*1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6,
25
2013); Aevoe Corp. v. Pace, No. 11-3215, 2011 WL 3904133, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011).
26
27
28
1
The Court is concerned that a return receipt could be a vehicle through which service is thwarted.
2
1
II.
EXTENSION OF TIME
Lenk also requests an extension of time to serve Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m)
2
requires a district court to grant an extension of time if good cause is shown and permits the
3
district court to grant such an extension even absent good cause. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d
4
5
1088, 1090 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). A defendant’s evasion of service can be “good cause.” Wei v.
State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1985). In support of “good cause,” “[a] plaintiff may
6
also [ ] show the following: (a) the party to be served personally received actual notice of the
7
lawsuit; (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced
8
if his complaint were dismissed. Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991).
9
Even if a good cause finding is not necessary, Lenk has demonstrated good cause here.
10
Lenk has been diligent in attempting to serve Defendants and a significant amount of time was
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
required for Lenk to do so. The facts presented to the Court are consistent with potential evasion
12
of service. There is no evidence that Defendants will suffer prejudice if the Court were to grant
13
this extension because the proceeding is still at its early stage. In contrast, dismissing the claims
14
against Defendants would prejudice Lenk.
15
16
III.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
The motion to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants Monolithic and Sciammas
18
by mail and e-mail is GRANTED. Defendant Monolithic shall be served at the following
19
addresses: (1) 79 Great Oaks Blvd., San Jose, CA 95119 and (2) The Corporation Trust Company,
20
Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801. Plaintiff must mail
21
Monolithic a copy of the summons, the complaint, and this order. Defendant Monolithic shall also
22
be served via e-mail.
23
Defendant Sciammas shall be served at the following addresses: (1) 79 Great Oaks Blvd.,
24
San Jose, CA 95119 and (2) 201 Forrester Rd., Los Gatos, CA 95032. Plaintiff must mail
25
Sciammas a copy of the summons, the complaint, and this order. Sciammas shall also be served
26
via e-mail.
27
The Court also GRANTS Lenk a 30-day extension to serve Defendants. Plaintiff shall
28
3
1
have until March 10, 2017, to effect service on Defendants and file proof of service. If Plaintiff
2
does not do so on or before February 3, 2017, the Court will dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R.
3
Civ. P. 41(b) without further notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S.
4
Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005).
5
Finally, the Court CONTINUES the case management conference scheduled for February
6
23, 2017, to May 4, 2017, at 11:00 a.m.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dated: February 7, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?