DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CV0006835·marin·Civil·Discovery / Service of Process
GRANTED

FERNANDO JACKSON vs. JEFF MACOMBER, ET AL

MOTION – OTHER: AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Hearing date
May 15, 2026
Department
L
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffFERNANDO JACKSON
DefendantJEFF MACOMBER
DefendantCHANCE ANDER

Ruling

On calendar is Plaintiff’s motion authorizing alternative service of the summons and complaint, which was filed on February 18, 2026. There are two defendants: Jeff Macomber and Chance Ander, who are personnel with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Proof of service of summons entered on March 2, 2026, indicates that Chance Andes was served. Plaintiff is to provide an update regarding service.

As to any remaining defendants, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are driving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share