Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is a breach of contract case.  Plaintiff Malibu Dream Team, Inc. entered into a “marketing services agreement” with Defendant Sondors, Inc.  Under the agreement, Plaintiff agreed to help develop programs to market and sell Defendant’s electric bikes and accessories into stores such as Costco, Lowes, Home Depot, etc.  Plaintiff was to receive performance fees of 1.5% of all net sales.  The agreement was for two years and provided that if terminated, Plaintiff was to be paid performance fees for 14 months from the date of termination on all sales generated from Plaintiff’s marketing efforts prior to termination.  Defendant terminated the contract at the end of two years and has failed to pay the performance fees for 14 months from the date of termination.      

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for order authorizing substituted service on the Secretary of State.  Plaintiff argues that no agent has been designated to accept service for Defendant and process cannot be served with reasonable diligence.   

LEGAL STANDARD  

Corporations Code section 1702 provides:  “If an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the agent designated cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personally delivering the process, or if no agent has been designated, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure or upon the corporation in the manner provided in subdivision (a), (b) or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a) of Section 416.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State’s office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing such service. Service in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.”  (Corp. Code, § 1702(a).)  

Similarly, Corporations Code section 2111 provides:  “If the agent designated for the service of process is a natural person and cannot be found with due diligence at the address stated in the designation or if the agent is a corporation and no person can be found with due diligence to whom the delivery authorized by Section 2110 may be made for the purpose of delivery to the corporate agent, or if the agent designated is no longer authorized to act, or if no agent has been designated and if no one of the officers or agents of the corporation specified in Section 2110 can be found after diligent search and it is so shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court, then the court may make an order that service be made by personal delivery to the Secretary of State or to an assistant or deputy secretary of state of two copies of the process together with two copies of the order, except that if the corporation to be served has not filed the statement required to be filed by Section 2105 then only one copy of the process and order need be delivered but the order shall include and set forth an address to which the process shall be sent by the Secretary of State. Service in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.”  (Corp. Code, § 2111(a).)   

“Diligence is a relative term and must be determined by the circumstances of each case. The question is one for the trial court in the first instance.”   (Vorburg v. Vorburg (1941) 18 Cal.2d 794, 797.)  “If the facts set forth in the affidavit have a legal tendency to show the exercise of diligence on behalf of the plaintiff in seeking to find the defendant within the state, and that after the exercise of such diligence he cannot be found, the decision of the judge that the affidavit shows the same to his satisfaction is to be regarded with the same effect as is his decision upon any other matter of fact submitted to [her or] his judicial determination.”  (Id.) 

DISCUSSION 

At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Defendant was registered as a foreign corporation with the Secretary of State.  Defendant did not designate an agent for service (Green Decl. ¶5), and it identified its principal place of business at 14438 Don Julian Road in the City of Industry.  Defendant subsequently closed the office and rented a warehouse at 427 Turnbull Canyon Road in the City of Industry. 

Storm Sondors is the founding shareholder and principal officer of Sondors.  No other person has been identified as authorized to accept service.  No known address was available for him.  Plaintiff only had his email address.  A copy of the summons and complaint was emailed to Mr. Sonders with an acknowledgment of service.  He did not return the acknowledgment.  (Green Decl. ¶ 3.) 

The summons and complaint was served on Christian Vasquez, the manager of the warehouse, although there is no evidence he is authorized to accept service.  He was served so that he could turn the pleadings over to the company’s authorized agent.  No response was received to the summons and complaint.  Mr. Sondors is not known to visit the warehouse.  (Green Decl. ¶ 4.)     

Plaintiff has exhausted all means to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant.  All known individuals working with Mr. Sondors have been asked where he resides or has an office.  No one is aware of either.  (Green Decl. ¶ 2.) 

On these facts, the Court orders that service of the summons and complaint shall be made by personal delivery on the Secretary of State. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for order authorizing substituted service on the Secretary of State. 

   

DATED:  November 27, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court