Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV01356, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01356    Hearing Date: April 2, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Cognein v. Lieb, et al.

CASE NO.:                24SMCV01356

MOTION:                  Request for Order Posting Service of Summons

HEARING DATE:   4/2/2025

Legal Standard

The “last resort” method of service authorized by the Code is by publication of summons in a newspaper of general circulation. Unlike other service methods, a court order must be obtained. Strict compliance is required. (County of Riverside v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 443, 450.) The affidavit provided in support of an application for publication of summons must be executed by a person who is a competent witness to the facts.  Reasonable diligence must be shown to serve the defendant in some other authorized manner (CCP§415.50(a)).  Reasonable diligence must be established by probative facts based on personal knowledge, (Olvera v. Olvera (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 32, 42) demonstrating a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney - i.e., a number of honest attempts to learn defendant’s whereabouts or his/her address by: inquiry of relatives; and investigation of appropriate city and telephone directories, voter registries, and assessor’s office property indices situated near defendant’s last known location. 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff Cognein requests permission to serve summons and complaint by “posting on the courthouse bulletin board” as an alternative means of service. This is not a statutorily authorized method of service. Such service is not reasonably calculated to give actual notice of this suit to Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to show diligent efforts to serve Defendants through authorized means. Plaintiff provides no details on her attempts at personal service, or other authorized methods of service. (CCP §415.50.) In fact, Plaintiff does not provide a competent declaration under penalty of perjury. The purported declaration does not meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.