Oscar Ramos v. Baja Cali Inc., et al.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OSCAR RAMOS, 7 Case No. 25-cv-05896-JCS Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO 9 SERVE THE SUMMONS AND BAJA CALI INC., et al., COMPLAINT BY PUBLICATION ON 10 DEFENDANTS GERASIMOS Defendants. GEORGOPOULOS AND 11 GERASIMOULA GEORGOPOULOS 12 Re: Dkt. No. 7

Plaintiff has filed an application to serve the summons and complaint by publication on Defendants Gerasimos Georgopoulos and Gerasimoula Georgopoulos (“the Georgopoulos defendants”). Dkt. no. 7. According to counsel’s declaration, multiple unsuccessful attempts have been made to personally serve the Georgopoulos defendants at their address in Yuba City, California. See MacBride Decl. ¶¶ 2-5. The process servers who made these service attempts stated that the property is gated and therefore they were unable to gain access to personally serve the Georgopoulos defendants. Ronalds Decl. ¶ 6 and attached Non-Service Reports. Plaintiff’s counsel also attempted to serve the summons and complaint by registered mail to the same address but the package was returned as unclaimed. MacBride Decl. ¶ 7.

Service of a complaint in federal court is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

Rule 4(e)(1) allows for service “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50, “[a] summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article and that,” as relevant here, “[a] cause of action exists against the party.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50.

4 The second requirement has been satisfied as Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Georgopoulos defendants are the real property owners of the business that is alleged to be in || violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in this case. Compl. 43; see also Macias v. || Fasail, No. 19-CV-00728-LHK, 2021 WL 2719297, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2021) (finding similar allegations sufficient to establish that a cause of action existed for the purposes of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50). The Court finds, however, that the declarations of counsel and the || process server are not sufficient to demonstrate “reasonable diligence” under section 415.50. In 11 particular, although Ronalds states in his declaration that he performed various searches and || concluded that the Georgopoulos defendants own the property at the Yuba City address where the 13 service attempts were made and that that address was “the most likely place that they live[,]” he || does not state whether his searches turned up alternative addresses where the Georgopoulos 15 || defendants might be served. Therefore, the Application is DENIED without prejudice to refiling || with a more detailed declaration establishing that Plaintiff has used reasonable diligence and either 17 has been unable to determine any other address where the Georgopoulos defendants can be served 18 or that Plaintiff has made additional attempts to serve the Georgopoulos defendants at any || alternative addresses Plaintiff's investigation has uncovered and has been unsuccessful in serving || them. In his renewed application, Plaintiff should also identify the publication in which he seeks 21 to publish the summons and supply a supporting declaration addressing why that publication || meets the requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: November 3, 2025 J PH C. SPERO 27 nited States Magistrate Judge