Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 MARK EDMONDS, Case No. 23-cv-02741-AGT 5 Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: SERVICE OF PROCESS 7 D21Q INC., 8 Defendant.

9 Because Mark Edmonds 1s proceeding in forma pauperis, he may rely on the United States || Marshals Service (USMS) “to serve the summons and the complaint.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 11 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-— |} 84 (1995). To that end, Edmunds is responsible for providing the Court with “sufficient 13 information to serve [the defendant].” Jd.

14 On July 6, 2023, the USMS attempted to serve defendant D21Q, Inc. at the address 15 |} Edmonds provided (548 Market Street, PMB 14763, San Francisco, CA 94104), but according to a 16 || the service-of-process receipt filed on the docket, ““D2iQ is not at [the] address provided.” Dkt. 8.

2 17 || Edmonds subsequently filed a one-page “request to serve the defendant’s attorney” which lists, Z 18 || without any discussion or explanation, the contact information of two lawyers in Gordon Rees ||} Scully Mansukhani, LLP’s San Francisco office. See Dkt. 9. That request is denied because there || is no indication that either individual is authorized to accept service on D21Q’s behalf.

21 By September 8, 2023, Edmonds must provide the Court with (1) D2i1Q’s accurate current || address and (2) the name and current address of D2iQ’s designated agent for service of process.

23 || The initial case management conference, currently scheduled for September 1, 2023, is continued 24 to October 20, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 || Dated: August 29, 2023 AL “TSE 28 United States Magistrate Judge