Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Equify Financial, LLC sued Cool Trans Carrier Inc., Gill Pal Kaur Harmesh, and M & S Bros. Trucklines Inc. in the Eastern District of California on July 29, 2026. The Clerk issued summonses the next day, and the court set a mandatory scheduling conference for October 27, 2026. The court's initial order told plaintiff to diligently pursue service and promptly file proofs of service. It warned that failure to prosecute could bring sanctions, including dismissal of unserved defendants.
On October 5, 2026, plaintiff filed a proof of service. It appeared to show that a process server left the summons and complaint with a person described as a clerk who was apparently in charge at Cool Trans's place of business. The papers were then mailed to that address on August 4, 2026, to the attention of a purported agent for service of process. No return had been filed for Harmesh or M & S Bros. Trucklines, and neither defendant had appeared or responded.
The Court’s Holding
The court treated service on Cool Trans as plausibly effective under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) and California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20. That section allows service by leaving the papers during office hours with the person apparently in charge and then mailing a copy. Service is deemed complete on the tenth day after mailing. Counting from the August 4 mailing, the court reasoned that service was complete on August 14, 2026, and that Cool Trans's response was due September 4, 2026 under Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Cool Trans has not responded. This is a preliminary assessment that the corporation 'appears' to have been properly served. It is not a ruling on a contested motion.
The court did not enter a default or a default judgment. It ordered plaintiff to file, by October 21, 2026, an application to the Clerk for entry of default against Cool Trans. It further ordered plaintiff to file and serve a motion for default judgment within 30 days of any entry of default.
The court reached a different result for the other two defendants. As to Harmesh, an individual, the proof of service did not show completed service. Neither Rule 4 nor California law permits serving an individual in the same manner as a business entity. Even assuming she is an authorized agent for Cool Trans, leaving papers with a clerk at the business and mailing them to the business address is not service on her personally. As to M & S Bros. Trucklines, plaintiff filed no return at all. Because the 90-day period under Rule 4(m) was about to expire, the court issued an order to show cause. Within 14 days of service of the order, plaintiff must file either Rule 4-compliant proofs of service on both defendants or a declaration showing good cause to extend the service deadline. The court vacated the October 27 scheduling conference, to be reset as necessary. It warned that noncompliance may result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
Key Takeaways
- Service on a corporation by delivery to the person apparently in charge, followed by mailing, is deemed complete ten days after mailing under section 415.20(a). That date starts the defendant's response clock.
- A method of service authorized for business entities does not serve an individual defendant, even if the individual may also be an agent for the entity.
- A plaintiff with an apparently served and non-responsive defendant must first seek the Clerk's entry of default and only then move for default judgment. Here, those steps carry deadlines of October 21, 2026 and 30 days after any entry.
- Rule 4(m) allows dismissal without prejudice, or an order that service be made within a set time, when a defendant is not served within 90 days. Absent good cause, failure to serve calls for dismissal of the unserved defendant.
- The order dismisses no one and decides nothing on the merits. Harmesh and M & S Bros. Trucklines remain in the case, subject to the 14-day show-cause directive.
Why It Matters
This is a routine but instructive case-management order from a magistrate judge. It is not a published opinion and carries no precedential weight. It shows how a court applies the Rule 4(m) deadline on its own initiative, with prior notice to the plaintiff, and how it distinguishes valid corporate service from deficient service on an individual.
Litigants should note that the court tied its assessment of Cool Trans's default to the proof of service as filed, and it will not treat an agent's role for a corporation as a substitute for personal service on the same person. What remains open is whether plaintiff will establish valid service on Harmesh and M & S Bros. Trucklines or show good cause for more time, and whether default will be entered against Cool Trans.