1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO, Case No. 20-cv-01810-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 v. SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 10 JAMES H. KANG, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 8 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 11.) 14 Plaintiff seeks default against Defendants James H. Kang dba Food Mart dba Food Barn and 15 Eastgate Enterprise, Inc., In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for default judgment, the 16 Court must assess whether the defendant against whom default judgment is sought was properly 17 served with notice of the action. See Penpower Tech. Ltd. v. S.P.C. Tech.,

, 18 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Upon review of Plaintiff’s 19 motion for default judgment and the proofs of service of the summons and complaint, the Court 20 has concerns regarding whether on Defendant Eastgate Enterprise, Inc. was properly served in this 21 matter. 22 “A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been 23 served properly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized 24 Techs., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1988). Service on a corporation may be made by 25 delivering a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with state law where the district 26 court is located. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(e)(1) & 4(h)(1)(A). California law states that service on 27 a corporation may be made by serving “the person designated as agent for service of process.” 1 Code § 415.10, or by leaving the summons and complaint “during usual office hours in [the 2 person’s] office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address… with the 3 person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and 4 complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy 5 of the summons and complaint were left,”

(a). 6 Here, the summons listed Defendant’s name and address as “Eastgate Enterprise, Inc., 7 18000 Studebaker Road #380, Cerritos, CA 90803.” (Dkt. No. 8 at 1.) Additionally, the 8 California Secretary of State website lists Defendant Eastgate Enterprise’s agent for service of 9 process as Jae S. Cho 18000 Studebaker Road, Ste. 585 Cerritos, CA 90703. See Business Search 10 – Entity Detail, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/ (select 11 “Corporation Name” search type and search “Eastgate Enterprise”) (last visited July 29, 2020). 12 However, the Proof of Service states that the complaint and summons were served on Eastgate 13 Enterprise’s agent for service of process, Jae Cho, by substituted service by leaving copies with 14 James Kang, Manager, at 1835 Rumrill Blvd. San Pablo, CA 94806. (Dkt. No. 8 at 3.) A copy of 15 the summons and complaint was likewise mailed to Jae Cho at 1835 Rumrill Blvd. San Pablo, CA 16 94806. (Id. at 4.) 17 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment does not address (1) that Defendant Eastgate 18 Enterprise was served at a different address than the one identified for the agent for service of 19 process, or that (2) substituted service was made on the co-Defendant James Kang. While 20 substituted service may be proper, “Plaintiffs must [] be reasonably diligent in their attempts at 21 direct service before substitute service is permitted.” Hong-Ming Lu v. Primax Wheel Corp., No. C 22 04-4170 JSW,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2005). Plaintiffs have provided no 23 information regarding what efforts were made to serve Defendant via its agent for service of 24 process at the address provided for the agent for service of process prior to making substituted 25 service. See Aussieker v. M&S Green-Power Energy, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-03234-JAM-AC,

2183783, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) (recommending denial of motion for default judgment 27 because plaintiffs did not attempt personal service two or three times before using substitute 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE regarding the adequacy of 2 || service. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing on or before August 20, 2020. The hearing on 3 || Plaintiffs motion for default scheduled for August 13, 2020 is VACATED. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: July 29, 2020 7 ’ ne 8 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 a 12

15

16

(«17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28