MORTGAGE INVESTORS IV, LLC VS. TAYLOR MARTIN, ET AL

5/14/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 20 of 26

2:00 PM LINE: 8 25-CIV-01192 MORTGAGE INVESTORS IV, LLC VS. TAYLOR MARTIN, ET AL

MORTGAGE INVESTORS IV, LLC NEIL PERETZ TAYLOR MARTIN

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Mortgage Investors IV, LLC’s Motion for Order Authorizing Service of Summons by Publication on Defendant Taylor Martin is GRANTED, subject to correction of the proposed order and submission of supplemental declaration. Plaintiff has shown, through counsel’s declaration, that Defendant Taylor Martin cannot with reasonable diligence be served by personal service, substituted service, or other available statutory means. Plaintiff’s efforts included multiple personal service attempts, professional skip-trace investigations, inquiry to the United States Post Office, investigation of potential addresses, correspondence seeking forwarding information, and discovery directed to The Weight Room RWC LLC regarding Martin’s whereabouts. This showing is sufficient under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50.

Before signing the order, Plaintiff shall submit a revised proposed order that: (1) identifies the correct operative pleading as the First Amended Complaint; (2) corrects the property-address inconsistency; (3) accurately states the number and locations of service attempts; and (4) identifies the newspaper or newspapers most likely to provide actual notice, including whether publication in San Joaquin County is appropriate given the most recent Stockton address. The Court requires a supplemental declaration updating the diligence efforts through the hearing date.

Although the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated reasonable diligence, Plaintiff must correct these inconsistencies in any revised proposed order before the Court will sign an order authorizing service by publication.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.