Motion for Order Authorizing Alternative Service
106 Forouzandeh vs. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB
25-01479354 Motion for Order Authorizing Alternative Service Cross-Complainant U.S. Bank Trust National Association’s (“U.S. Bank”) Motion Authorizing Alternate Service is denied without prejudice. U.S. Bank moves, under CCP section 413.30, for an order authorizing alternate service on Cross-Defendant Michael Thompson, both (i) individually and (ii) as Trustee of the Thompson Paseo Elegancia Trust Dated September 13, 2022.
When serving an individual, the Code provides five different methods of service: (1) personal service (§ 415.10); (2) substitute service (§ 415.20); (3) acknowledgement of receipt of summons by regular mail with return acknowledgment of receipt (§ 415.30); (4) registered or certified airmail with return receipt (but only on a person outside this state) (§ 415.40); and, (5) service by publication (§ 415.50).
Generally, “in order to obtain in personam jurisdiction through any form of constructive service there must be strict compliance with the requisite statutory procedures.” (Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1407, 1417.) Even “[a]ctual notice” is not sufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant where the method of service is “totally outside the statutory prescriptions.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 415 [rejecting argument that, if “somehow [service] resulted in actual notice to the defendant in time to defend the action, then any defects in the manner of service should be overlooked”]; see also American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 392 [“Actual notice of the action alone, however, is not a substitute for proper service and is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction”].)
Here, U.S. Bank has not shown that relief under CCP section 413.30 is available. The statute provides, in relevant part, that:
If no provision is made in this chapter or other law for the service of summons, or if a plaintiff, despite exercising reasonable diligence, has been unable to effect service of the summons by any of the methods authorized under this chapter, the court in which the action is pending may, upon motion, direct that summons be served in a manner that is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served, including by electronic mail or other electronic technology, and that proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
To establish “reasonable diligence,” the moving party must “set forth facts detailing all attempts to serve the defendant by each of the methods prescribed by statute, including facts demonstrating why each method was unsuccessful at every address or location where the defendant is likely to be found.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 413.30, subd. (a)(2).)
Here, U.S. Bank has arguably demonstrated that it has been reasonably diligent in attempting personal service on Cross-Defendant Thomson, and that it has been unable to do so. However, U.S. Bank’s motion fails to address any attempt at service by acknowledgement of receipt of summons with return acknowledgment of receipt (§ 415.30), or any of the other methods of service.
As part of U.S. Bank’s proposed “alternative service package,” it suggests service by publication. However, the motion fails to include the requisite affidavit addressing the circumstances required for an order of service by publication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, subd. (a); Rios v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 884 [“An application for an order of publication must be accompanied by an affidavit stating facts from which the trial court can draw the conclusion that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant”].)
Moving party to give notice.
107 Liu vs. Tran
25-01487015 Motion for Undertaking Defendant, Brittany R. Eichin, moves for an order requiring Plaintiff, Shu Xia Liu, to file an undertaking pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1030, to secure Defendant’s anticipated costs in the estimated total amount of $35,525, or alternatively, any other sum deemed reasonable by the court. The Motion for Undertaking is DENIED.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to an Orange County Sheriff’s Department Police Report, dated June 26, 2025. Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of an Orange County Sheriff’s Department Police Report, dated June 26, 2025 (Ex. 1) pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) and (h). The recommendation is to DENY the request for judicial notice.
A police report is not a court record (Evidence Code section 452(d)), and the contents of the police report do not contain facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy (Evidence Code section 452(h)). A police report is not the proper subject of judicial notice. (See In re Marriage of Brewster & Clevenger (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 481, 498 [finding a police report “is not subject to either mandatory or discretionary judicial notice under Evidence Code sections 451 or 452; it is not party of a court record under section 452, subdivision (d), nor is it