Davis v. Rebel Creamery LLC

District Court, N.D. California·Decided November 18, 2022·No. 3:22-cv-04111·Unknown

Opinion

ANGELA DAVIS, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04111-TSH

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE Re: Dkt. No. 12 Defendant.

Plaintiffs Angela Davis and Bonnie Bennett bring this putative class action against Rebel Creamery LLC, alleging Rebel falsely marketed its ice cream as healthier than other ice creams in the marketplace. Plaintiffs now move the Court to permit alternative service on Rebel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. ECF No. 12. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE and EXTENDS the deadline to complete service to December 16, 2022. Plaintiffs filed this case on July 13, 2022, alleging Rebel “engages in a deceptive marketing campaign to convince consumers that [its] Products are nutritious and healthful to consume, and are more healthful than similar products.” Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1. They assert claims for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., violation of California’s False Advertising Law, id. § 17500, et seq., violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. Compl. ¶¶ 155-241. Rebel Creamery LLC is a Utah company with its principal place of business in Midway, on the State of Utah Division of Corporations and Commercial Code’s database for REBEL CREAMERY LLC: 125 W MAIN ST #504 MIDWAY, UT 84049. Mot. at 2 & Ex. A (Utah.gov page for REBEL CREAMERY LLC). However, the process server was unable to complete service because the registered address is a United States Post Office. Id. at 2-3 & Ex. B (Return of Non-Service). Plaintiffs allege Rebel “improperly registered its company in a way to obfuscate that it used a PO Box rather than a physical location authorized to accept service,” and that “[t]his was knowingly done to avoid service because a company cannot be registered to a PO Box in the State of Utah.” Id. at 3. On November 11, service was attempted at 65 White Pine Canyon Road, Park City, UT 84060, a residential address that the company recently used on trademark documents with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Id. at 3 & Ex. C. Service was not completed because the Park City residence is located in a gated community, and the private security at the gate’s entrance would not let the process server enter the neighborhood. Id. Plaintiffs filed the present motion on November 17, stating that their process server has been unable to successfully effectuate service upon Rebel at the address of its registered agent for service of process or at any other known address used by the company. Id. Plaintiffs believe that the Park City address is the true address where Rebel may be served through its authorized agent and owner, Austin Archibald, and therefore request the Court permit them to complete service by mailing a true and correct copy of the filed Summons and Complaint simultaneously by U.S.P.S. first class and certified return receipt requested mail as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Davis v. Rebel Creamery LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Davis v. Rebel Creamery LLC (Davis v. Rebel Creamery LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Transamerica Title Insurance v. Hendrix
34 Cal. App. 4th 740 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)