Integon National Insurance Company v. Andrew Madison Mackenzie-Davis et al

Defendant contends that he does not reside at that address. He provides his current address of 3505 Sonoma Blvd 20-102, Vallejo, CA 94590. Defendant further contends that the POS fails to show that he was either personally served or properly served by substituted service. Defendant argues that leaving documents on a bench is insufficient substituted service under section 415.20, subdivision (b), which requires the documents to be left with a competent member of the household or person apparently in charge at a defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address, with a copy mailed to the same address.

While Defendant correctly asserts the statutory requirements for substituted service, Defendant’s argument that the POS fails to show that the requirements were satisfied lacks merit (other than the correct address). Instead, the POS demonstrates service on a competent member of the household and that the documents were thereafter mailed. (See 2/24/26 Proof of Service of Summons.) The Court finds no reference to the documents being left on a bench, and Defendant fails to provide any foundation for that contention.

That said, it appears undisputed that Defendant does not reside at the address served. There is no opposition on file by Plaintiff and the only address provided for Defendant in Plaintiff’s Complaint is the Vallejo address. There is nothing before the Court indicating that the American Canyon address is connected to Defendant. Thus, the POS fails to show compliance with the requirement that service be made “at the person’s dwelling house [or] usual place of abode.” (§ 415.20, subd. (b).)

Because the POS fails to show proper service on Defendant, the motion is GRANTED.

Integon National Insurance Company v. Andrew Madison 26CV000413 Mackenzie-Davis et al

MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT ANDREW MADISON MACKENZIE-DAVIS BY PUBLICATION

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to the other party served forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Plaintiff Integon National Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50, 5 for an order directing that service of the summons and complaint in this action on defendant Andrew Madison Mackenzie-Davis (“Defendant”) be effected by publication of the summons in a newspaper of general circulation in Napa County.

“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 either (1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action, [or] (2) The party to be served has or claims an interest in real or personal property in this state that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court or the relief demanded in the action consists wholly or in part in excluding the party from any interest in the property.” (§ 415.50, subd. (a).) The basic test is whether the declaration shows plaintiff took “those steps which a reasonable person who truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.” (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 333.)

The Court finds, from the Declaration of Patrick Howe, that Defendant cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner, as Defendant’s current address is unknown after various attempts and manners to locate it. Moreover, the Court is satisfied by Plaintiff’s showing that Defendant is a necessary or proper party to this action.

5 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

16