Doe v. Santa Clara County Department of Health and Human Services

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE DOE, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04948-JSW

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 9 v. FOURTH MOTION FOR SERVICE BY ALTERNATE MEANS AND 10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND PREJUDICE AS TO DEFENDANT 11 HUMAN SERVICES, et al., BRIAN HERNANDEZ Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 53 12

13 14 Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ fourth motion for service by alternate means. (Dkt. No. 15 53.) For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion. 16 Plaintiffs have submitted a facially insufficient motion for the fourth time. The Court thus 17 endeavors to make the requirements for a motion—and the reasons Plaintiffs’ motion once again 18 falls short—as clear as possible. The Court assumes familiarity with its previous orders. (See 19 Dkt. Nos. 46, 48, 50.) 20 A. Plaintiffs Did Not Demonstrate Reasonable Diligence in Attempting to Locate and Serve Defendant Hernandez. 21 22 In its Order denying Plaintiffs’ third motion for service by alternate means, the Court 23 walked through the declaration of Attorney Meyers and pointed out missed opportunities and steps 24 Meyers had not taken to potentially locate Hernandez. (Dkt. No. 50, at 5-7.) The Court stated: 25 “should Plaintiffs be inclined to file a renewed motion for service by alternate means, Plaintiffs 26 should make additional attempts to locate and effect service on Hernandez via personal service or 27 other authorized method.” (Id. at 7.) 1 since the Court’s last order. Instead, they resubmit the same declaration from Meyers. Plaintiffs 2 appear to have interpreted the Court’s previous order to mean that further efforts were optional. 3 They were not. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion on this basis. 4 B. Plaintiffs Did Not Provide Independent Factual Support for the Existence of a Cause of Action as to Defendant Hernandez. 5 6 As the Court has repeatedly stated, in order to satisfy California Code of Civil Procedure 7 Section 415.50, Plaintiffs must submit an affidavit signed by someone with personal knowledge of 8 the essential facts supporting the existence of a cause of action against the defendant. In its 9 previous order, the Court addressed what an “affidavit” is, and it noted that a signature is required. 10 (Dkt. No. 50, at 3-4.) The Court cautioned that an “/s/” signature provided by any person other 11 than the filing attorney would likely not satisfy the signature requirement. (Id.) Specifically, the 12 Court stated: If, on a renewed motion, a non-attorney or an attorney filing through another’s 13 account provides an electronically-signed declaration, more will be required. Additionally, at a minimum, the filer of the document must attest that the signatory 14 concurred in the filing of the document. See L.R. 5-1(a), (i)(3); but see Wheelmaxx Inc. v. Mahal, 22-cv-01506-ADA-SKO, 2023 WL 3224161, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 15 3, 2023) (questioning whether an attorney declaration could satisfy Section 415.50’s affidavit requirement). 16 17 (Dkt. No. 50, at 4.) 18 Plaintiffs provided a document purporting to be a “sworn affidavit and declaration” from 19 Jane Doe. At least some of the admissible statements in the declaration support the existence of a 20 cause of action against Hernandez. However, the document is signed with an electronic “/s/” 21 signature, and Meyers, the filing attorney, did not attest that Jane concurred in the filing of the 22 document. The Court cannot accept the filing as an affidavit for purposes of Section 415.50, and 23 it DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion on this additional basis. 24 C. Plaintiffs Did Not Follow the Court’s Previous Order. 25 In its previous Order, the Court stated as follows: 26 In the event Plaintiffs choose to file a renewed motion, they should specify in which publications they propose to publish the notice. 27 a proposed order that sets forth the relief or action sought and a short statement of 1 the rationale of decision, including citation of authority, that the party requests the 5 Court to adopt. 3 || (Dkt. No. 50, at 10.) 4 Plaintiffs did not specify the publications in which they proposed to give notice, and they 5 did not file a proposed order. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion on this additional basis. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to serve Defendant Hernandez by 8 alternate means. The Court DISMISSES THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to 9 || Defendant Hernandez pursuant to Rule 4(m). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. a | 1] Dated: October 16, 2023 i f ds i / 2 NN LF Lats) Xx JEFFREY 3. WHI 13 United Plates’ Digéict Judge

(44

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28