Opinion
21-CV-657-CAB-MDD
08-20-2021
SCANNING TECHNOLOGIES INNOVATIONS, LLC Plaintiff, v. GAFANA ENTERPRISES, INC. Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
[DOC. NO. 8]
HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case, and a summons was issued on the following day. When no activity appeared on the docket after 90 days, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismiss for failure to prosecute. [Doc. No. 5.] Plaintiff responded that it had had difficulty locating a proper address for service on Defendant, but that it had a new address and was attempting service. Another month then passed with no other activity on the docket, so the Court again ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [Doc. No. 7.]
In response to this second order to show cause, Plaintiff now moves for substituted service on Defendant by serving Defendant's registered agent by certified mail, return receipt requested. “[A] method of service of process must . . . comport with constitutional notions of due process. To meet this requirement, the method of service crafted by the district court must be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (Jackson, J.)). Here, the address to which Plaintiff proposes to mail the summons and complaint is the same address where a process server attempted to personally serve Defendant and reported that the location was “[v]isibly vacant” and that an employee of a neighboring business reported that Defendant had been out of business at that location for two years. [Doc. No. 8-2 at 2.] Accordingly, mailing the summons and complaint to this same address is not reasonably calculated to apprise Defendant of the existence of this lawsuit. The motion to serve Defendant in this manner is therefore DENIED.
On or before, August 27, 2021 , Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for substituted service in a manner that is reasonably calculated to apprise Defendant of the existence of this lawsuit. Failure to file such a motion or otherwise demonstrate effective service on Defendant will result in the dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
It is SO ORDERED.