1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, No. 2:21-cv-01275-MCE-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UTS LOGISTICS INC., d/b/a UNITED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On April 1, 2022, this Court denied Plaintiff Valley National Bank’s (“Plaintiff”) 18 Application for Court Order Authorizing Service of the Summons and First Amended 19 Complaint (“FAC”) on Defendant UTS Logistics Inc., d/b/a United Transportation 20 Services (“Defendant”) by Hand Delivery to the California Secretary of State. ECF Nos. 21 7, 8. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Application, ECF No. 9, which, for 22 reasons set forth below, is GRANTED. 23 The California Secretary of State’s records list Gurvinder Sandhu as Defendant’s 24 Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Director, and Registered Agent for Service of 25 Process and the address as 10221 Soprano Way, Elk Grove, California 95757. See Ex. 26 1, Garcia Decl., ECF No. 9-1, at 5–6 (listing Mukhtiar Sandhu as Chief Financial Officer 27 at the same address). In addition to the previous attempts at service, see ECF No. 8, at 28 1–2, Plaintiff states that, on April 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel “mailed a copy of the 1 summons and complaint, along with a Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt pursuant 2 to section 415.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (‘Notice and 3 Acknowledgement’), to Defendant at the three addresses” identified by the California 4 Secretary of State’s website and the firm’s research. See id.; Garcia Decl., ECF No. 9-1 5 ¶ 10. Defendant had until May 12, 2022, to complete and return the Notice and 6 Acknowledgment but to date, Defendant has failed to respond. Id. ¶ 11. Furthermore, 7 Plaintiff’s counsel “attempted three (3) times on three different days to contact Defendant 8 at the phone number listed in the Premium Finance Agreement and Disclosure 9 Statement (‘PFA’)” but each time, “no one answered and [counsel] was unable to leave a 10 voice mail message.” Id. ¶ 12 (stating the PFA “is the contract between Plaintiff and 11 Defendant that is the subject of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim in this lawsuit.”). 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 authorizes service of process on a corporation 13 in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e) for serving individuals.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A). 14 Rule 4(e)(1) allows for service by “following state law for serving a summons in an action 15 brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or 16 where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). 17 California Corporations Code § 1702 provides the following: 18 If an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the agent designated cannot 19 with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personally delivering the process, or if no agent has been 20 designated, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation cannot 21 be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, 22 subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure or upon the corporation 23 in the manner provided in subdivision (a), (b) or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a) of Section 416.20 of the Code of Civil 24 Procedure, the court may make an order that the service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the 25 Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State's office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy 26 of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing such service. Service in this 27

28 1 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State. 2 3

(a). Because Defendant is listed as an active corporation and 4 has not been dissolved or forfeited its right to do business, Plaintiff must demonstrate by 5 affidavit its inability with reasonable diligence to effect service under California Code of 6 Civil Procedure § 416.10. Dakavia Mgmt. Corp. v. Bigelow, Case No. 1:20-cv-00448- 7 NONE-SKO,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2020). “Under Section 416.10, 8 a corporation can be served through a registered agent for process; enumerated officers 9 of the corporation or a person authorized to receive service; a cashier or assistant of a 10 banking corporation; or, where the party cannot with reasonable diligence serve any of 11 these individuals, the Secretary of State.”

(citing

). 12 “The relevant individual may be served by personal delivery, by delivery to someone else 13 at the person’s residence or place or business with subsequent mailing, or by mail with 14 acknowledgment of receipt.” Dakavia,

, at *1 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. 15 Code §§ 415.10, 415.20, 415.30(a)). 16 In determining whether Plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence, “[t]he 17 question is simply whether [Plaintiff] took those steps which a reasonable person who 18 truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.” Donel, Inc. v. 19 Badalian,

(1978). “The term ‘reasonable diligence’ . . . denotes 20 a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or 21 his agent or attorney.” Kott v. Superior Ct.,

(1996). “An 22 affidavit failing to demonstrate that a diligent search for officers as well as agents was 23 performed is inadequate.” Dakavia,

, at *2 (quoting Viewtech, Inc. v. 24 Skytech USA, Inc., Civil No. 07cv541-L(NLS),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 25 May 14, 2007)). 26 In its prior Order, the Court noted that, “[a]lthough Plaintiff has made attempts to 27 serve Defendant’s registered agent, Plaintiff has ‘not shown that [it] attempted to search 28 for officers and other agents of the corporation to serve.’” ECF No. 8, at 4 (quoting 1 Dakavia,

, at *3). This time around, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 2 || exercised reasonable diligence. Gurvinder Sandhu is listed not only as the registered 3 || agent but also as a corporate officer holding multiple titles with Defendant. The 4 | Secretary of State’s website lists another corporate officer, Mukhtiar Sandhu, but 5 || provides the same address as Gurvinder Sandhu. As previously stated, the process 6 || server attempted service at the listed address, but was told that no one by the name of 7 || Gurvinder Sandhu was at that address. Attempts were also made at two alternate 8 || addresses, but to no avail. Following the Court’s prior Order, Plaintiff's counsel sent the 9 | summons, complaint, and Notice and Acknowledgement to the three available 10 | addresses but have not received a response. Finally, Plaintiff's counsel also made three 11 || unsuccessful attempts to contact Defendant by phone. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Renewed 12 || Application, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 | Dated: June 7, 2022 Main Whig { AX Xo - SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28