Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Desire Saucedo filed this employment action against her former employer, California Fine Wines & Spirits LLC d/b/a Total Wine & More ("Total Wine"), and her former supervisor, Diana Montalvo. On August 13, 2026, the court granted Total Wine's motion to compel arbitration. Defendant Montalvo had not yet been served. On July 21, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion for service by publication on Montalvo. At an August 13 hearing, the court found plaintiff had not shown sufficient diligence to justify service by publication but invited a supplemental brief detailing further efforts to locate Montalvo.
Following the hearing, plaintiff took additional steps including obtaining a "PeopleMap" report, calling phone numbers from that report, hiring a private investigator, conducting a vehicle registration inquiry, and speaking with a neighbor at the Madeline Vine Lane address in Knoxville, Tennessee. The neighbor did not know if anyone lived at the address. The vehicle registration showed a car parked at the address registered to Thomas P. Christensten, who appears to be married to Diana Christensen, but there was no corroboration that Diana Christensen is Diana Montalvo.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion for service by publication without prejudice. First, the court found a question whether any Diana Montalvo resides at the Madeline Vine Lane address. The PeopleMap report lacked real corroboration; no neighbors confirmed a Diana Montalvo lives there despite the private investigator's efforts. The vehicle registration linked the address to Thomas Christensten and Diana Christensen, but plaintiff offered no evidence connecting Diana Christensen to Diana Montalvo. Second, even if a Diana Montalvo resides there, the name is not uncommon, and plaintiff failed to show the Diana Montalvo in Knoxville, Tennessee is the same person who worked at Total Wine in Pleasant Hill, California.
The court extended the deadline for service to 30 days after entry of the order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), noting plaintiff's continued attempts to locate Montalvo. The court warned that if plaintiff fails to properly serve Montalvo or demonstrate sufficient diligence for service by publication, the action against Montalvo will be dismissed without prejudice. The court further noted that California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50 requires an affidavit showing a cause of action exists against the party to be served or that the party is necessary or proper; a complaint alone or counsel's declaration of diligence efforts does not satisfy this requirement. Any future motion for service by publication must include such an affidavit.
Key Takeaways
- Service by publication requires a showing of due diligence and a good reason to believe the defendant resides at the identified address; a PeopleMap report alone without neighbor corroboration or identity verification is insufficient.
- Even if a person with the defendant's name resides at the address, the plaintiff must establish that person is the same individual who is the proper defendant in the action, especially when the name is common.
- Under FRCP 4(m), the court may extend the service deadline for good cause rather than dismiss immediately when the plaintiff demonstrates ongoing efforts to locate the defendant.
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50 requires an affidavit establishing a cause of action against the defendant or that the defendant is a necessary or proper party; a complaint or counsel's declaration of diligence efforts does not meet this requirement.
- The denial was without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to renew the motion with proper evidentiary support including the required affidavit.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the evidentiary rigor federal courts in California apply to motions for service by publication under both federal and state law. The court's analysis emphasizes that database reports like PeopleMap require independent corroboration—such as neighbor confirmation or identity verification—to establish residence. The ruling also clarifies the distinct requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50, which mandates an affidavit of cause of action beyond the complaint itself, a requirement that may catch plaintiffs off guard when proceeding under state service-by-publication statutes in federal court. The 30-day extension under FRCP 4(m) reflects the court's willingness to accommodate diligent plaintiffs while enforcing procedural deadlines.