Trujillo v. Garcia et al

Filing 15

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 14 Administrative Motion requesting extension of deadline to complete service. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2017)

E-filed 3/21/2017

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
JOSE TRUJILLO,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM
SERVICE DEADLINE

FERNANDO GONZALEZ,

10

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.17-cv-00137-HRL

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Plaintiff Jose Trujillo (“Trujillo”) requests that the court extend the deadline to complete

12
13

service upon defendant Fernando Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”). Dkt. No. 14. The court set the current

14

deadline of March 13, 2017, in its initial case management scheduling order. Dkt. No. 4.
In his administrative motion, Trujillo states that he has been diligently attempting to serve

15
16

Gonzalez, the alleged owner of the subject property in this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

17

denial of access case. Dkt. No. 14. Trujillo’s eight attempts to serve Gonzalez at what Trujillo

18

initially believed to be Defendant’s home address (as identified through LexisNexis and Parcel

19

Quest) were unsuccessful. Dkt. No. 14, Best Decl., ¶ 3. These attempts having failed, Trujillo

20

then discovered another address for Gonzalez and attempted service there. Id., ¶ 4-6. Gonzalez,

21

Plaintiff asserts, is the CEO of the San Benito Community Services Development Corporation,

22

and the new address is listed on a form related to that organization that was filed with the

23

California Secretary of State. Id., ¶ 4-6, Ex. C.
Trujillo claims that substitute service was completed on March 10, with the summons and

24
25

complaint subsequently mailed on March 13, 2017. Id., ¶ 7. Plaintiff argues that, under California

26

law, service is effective as of March 23, 2017, ten days after the mailing was completed.1 Plaintiff

27
1

28

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 415.20(b), if service cannot be completed
in person through the exercise of reasonable diligence, a summons may be served via substitute

1

thus requests that the court extend the deadline to serve Defendant for 14 days to March 27, 2017.

2

Dkt. No. 14.

3

As the deadline for service in this case is determined by a court scheduling order rather
than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, Rule 16(b)(4) applies. This rule states: “[a] schedule may

5

be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule

6

16(b)’s good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

7

amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Here,

8

Trujillo diligently attempted to serve Gonzalez at what Plaintiff reasonably thought was his home

9

address. Plaintiff attempted service eight times, including two three-hour stake-outs. After the

10

latter two attempts failed, Trujillo promptly located a new address for Gonzalez and promptly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

attempted service at the new address.

12

The court is persuaded that Trujillo has been diligent in attempting to serve Gonzalez, and

13

that good cause exists to extend the deadline to complete service. The court extends the deadline

14

to complete service to March 27, 2017.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: 3/21/2017

17
18
19

HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

service, and by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the address at which substitute
service was completed. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(b). “Service of a summons in this manner
is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” Id.
2