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)

Download PDF
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

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?