Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc.

Opinion

3 4 MARK EDMONDS, Case No. 23-cv-02741-AGT 5 Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: SERVICE OF PROCESS

7 D21Q INC., 8 Defendant. 9 Because Mark Edmonds 1s proceeding in forma pauperis, he may rely on the United States 10 Marshals Service (USMS) “to serve the summons and the complaint.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 11 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-— 12 } 84 (1995). To that end, Edmunds is responsible for providing the Court with “sufficient 13 information to serve [the defendant].” Jd. 14 On July 6, 2023, the USMS attempted to serve defendant D21Q, Inc. at the address 3 15 |} Edmonds provided (548 Market Street, PMB 14763, San Francisco, CA 94104), but according to a 16 || the service-of-process receipt filed on the docket, ““D2iQ is not at [the] address provided.” Dkt. 8. 2 17 || Edmonds subsequently filed a one-page “request to serve the defendant’s attorney” which lists, Z 18 || without any discussion or explanation, the contact information of two lawyers in Gordon Rees 19 } Scully Mansukhani, LLP’s San Francisco office. See Dkt. 9. That request is denied because there 20 is no indication that either individual is authorized to accept service on D21Q’s behalf. 21 By September 8, 2023, Edmonds must provide the Court with (1) D2i1Q’s accurate current 22 address and (2) the name and current address of D2iQ’s designated agent for service of process. 23 The initial case management conference, currently scheduled for September 1, 2023, is continued 24 to October 20, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. 26 Dated: August 29, 2023 27 AL “TSE 28 United States Magistrate Judge