7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JASON LAWRENCE SHEPARD, Case No. 1:25-cv-00822-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE v. SERVICE ON DEFENDANT CELIA 13 FRANCES PEDRAZA SHEPARD THE CITY OF FRESNO, et al., 14 (ECF No. 24) Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application for alternative service of process under Federal 17 Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). In the application, Plaintiff argues that because diligent efforts to 18 serve Defendant Celia Frances Pedraza Shepard (“Defendant Shepard”) have failed, service by 19 posting, by serving Defendant’s mother, by mailing, and by email should be permitted. Having 20 reviewed the application and the entire record in this case, the motion will be granted. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 This is a Section 1983 case involving an alleged plan by Defendant Aime Veronica Perez 24 Pedraza (“Pedraza”) and Defendant Shepard to have Plaintiff falsely arrested, removed from his 25 home, and prosecuted for domestic violence. (ECF No. 11, ¶ 11.) Based on his allegations, 26 Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants the City of Fresno, Officer Marissa Cisneros, Officer 27 Maria Flores, Defendant Pedraza, and Defendant Shepard for a claim of false arrest brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a claim of false arrest under California law. (Id. at ¶¶ 26- 1 37.) 2 On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for alternative service and included 3 a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel and supporting exhibits. (ECF No. 24.) In the declaration, 4 Plaintiff describes that counsel for Plaintiff made three attempts to effectuate service at 1835 E. 5 Brandon Lane, Fresno, California 93720, at the end of September 2025. (Id. at p. 3.) Thereafter, 6 Plaintiff contracted with a process server, Aindra Evans, to serve Defendant Shepard at that same 7 address, “after confirming through a public records research database, Truthfinder, that the stated 8 address corresponded to [Defendant Shepard].” (Id.) Moreover, this address was confirmed by 9 California’s Department of Consumer Affairs (“DCA”) because Defendant Shepard used the 10 Brandon Lane address when renewing her pharmacy technician license. (Id.) In support of these 11 efforts, Plaintiff has included exhibits from public records, Truthfinder, and the DCA. (Id. at 12 Exhs. A, C.) These records support that Defendant’s address is 1835 E. Brandon Lane, Fresno, 13 California 93720. 14 Process server Evans then attempted to effectuate service on the Brandon Lane address at 15 various time and dates in the month of October 2025. (Id. at Exh. B.) It appears that Evans also 16 tried to effectuate service at the workplace of Defendant’s mother and one other address 17 associated with Defendant. (Id.) In total, Evans attempted service on Defendant ten times, and 18 Plaintiff himself three times. Regarding the Brandon Lane address, Plaintiff notes that 19 “[a]lthough no movement inside the residence has been detected, and nobody has been 20 answering the door in response to the repeated knocking, the Ring Camera outside the residence 21 seemed to still be active.” (Id. at p. 3.) 22 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests an order allowing him to serve Defendant 23 Shepard by posting at Defendant’s address, serving at the place of employment of Defendant’s 24 mother, mailing Defendant at her address, and emailing Defendant at her confirmed email 25 address. 26 The Court reviewed the motion and questioned, inter alia, how Plaintiff had “confirmed” 27 the email address of Defendant Shepard. (ECF No. 26.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file a 1 timely complied (ECF No. 27), and the Court now addresses the motion. 2 II. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of process upon 5 individuals within a judicial district of the United States: 6 Service Upon Individuals Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an 7 individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in 8 any judicial district of the United States:
9 (1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is effected, for the service of a 10 summons upon the defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the State; or 11 (2) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint 12 to the individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some 13 person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an 14 agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). The goal of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 is to “to provide maximum freedom and 16 flexibility in the procedures for giving all defendants . . . notice of commencement of the action 17 and to eliminate unnecessary technicality in connection with service of process.” Electrical 18 Specialty Co. v. Road and Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 314 (9th Cir. 1992), citing 4 C. 19 Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1061, at 216 (2d ed. 1987). Due Process 20 requires that any service of notice be “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise 21 interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 22 objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). 23 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), the Court looks to the law of California, the state in 24 which this Court sits, to determine the sufficiency of the proposed service. Regarding posting, it 25 appears that California permits posting for service in unlawful detainer actions. See Cal. Civ. P. 26 § 415.45. That said, there is an alternative method to personal service at the address of the 27 person to be served: 1 If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as 2 specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at 3 the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal 4 Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, 5 place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who 6 shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, 7 postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a 8 summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing. 9 Cal. Civ. P. § 415.20. This method requires a plaintiff also serve the complaint via first-class 10 mail, and therefore, Plaintiff’s request to serve via mail collapses into this provision as well.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JASON LAWRENCE SHEPARD, Case No. 1:25-cv-00822-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE v. SERVICE ON DEFENDANT CELIA 13 FRANCES PEDRAZA SHEPARD THE CITY OF FRESNO, et al., 14 (ECF No. 24) Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application for alternative service of process under Federal 17 Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). In the application, Plaintiff argues that because diligent efforts to 18 serve Defendant Celia Frances Pedraza Shepard (“Defendant Shepard”) have failed, service by 19 posting, by serving Defendant’s mother, by mailing, and by email should be permitted. Having 20 reviewed the application and the entire record in this case, the motion will be granted. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 This is a Section 1983 case involving an alleged plan by Defendant Aime Veronica Perez 24 Pedraza (“Pedraza”) and Defendant Shepard to have Plaintiff falsely arrested, removed from his 25 home, and prosecuted for domestic violence. (ECF No. 11, ¶ 11.) Based on his allegations, 26 Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants the City of Fresno, Officer Marissa Cisneros, Officer 27 Maria Flores, Defendant Pedraza, and Defendant Shepard for a claim of false arrest brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a claim of false arrest under California law. (Id. at ¶¶ 26- 1 37.) 2 On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for alternative service and included 3 a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel and supporting exhibits. (ECF No. 24.) In the declaration, 4 Plaintiff describes that counsel for Plaintiff made three attempts to effectuate service at 1835 E. 5 Brandon Lane, Fresno, California 93720, at the end of September 2025. (Id. at p. 3.) Thereafter, 6 Plaintiff contracted with a process server, Aindra Evans, to serve Defendant Shepard at that same 7 address, “after confirming through a public records research database, Truthfinder, that the stated 8 address corresponded to [Defendant Shepard].” (Id.) Moreover, this address was confirmed by 9 California’s Department of Consumer Affairs (“DCA”) because Defendant Shepard used the 10 Brandon Lane address when renewing her pharmacy technician license. (Id.) In support of these 11 efforts, Plaintiff has included exhibits from public records, Truthfinder, and the DCA. (Id. at 12 Exhs. A, C.) These records support that Defendant’s address is 1835 E. Brandon Lane, Fresno, 13 California 93720. 14 Process server Evans then attempted to effectuate service on the Brandon Lane address at 15 various time and dates in the month of October 2025. (Id. at Exh. B.) It appears that Evans also 16 tried to effectuate service at the workplace of Defendant’s mother and one other address 17 associated with Defendant. (Id.) In total, Evans attempted service on Defendant ten times, and 18 Plaintiff himself three times. Regarding the Brandon Lane address, Plaintiff notes that 19 “[a]lthough no movement inside the residence has been detected, and nobody has been 20 answering the door in response to the repeated knocking, the Ring Camera outside the residence 21 seemed to still be active.” (Id. at p. 3.) 22 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests an order allowing him to serve Defendant 23 Shepard by posting at Defendant’s address, serving at the place of employment of Defendant’s 24 mother, mailing Defendant at her address, and emailing Defendant at her confirmed email 25 address. 26 The Court reviewed the motion and questioned, inter alia, how Plaintiff had “confirmed” 27 the email address of Defendant Shepard. (ECF No. 26.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file a 1 timely complied (ECF No. 27), and the Court now addresses the motion. 2 II. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of process upon 5 individuals within a judicial district of the United States: 6 Service Upon Individuals Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an 7 individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in 8 any judicial district of the United States:
9 (1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is effected, for the service of a 10 summons upon the defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the State; or 11 (2) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint 12 to the individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some 13 person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an 14 agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). The goal of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 is to “to provide maximum freedom and 16 flexibility in the procedures for giving all defendants . . . notice of commencement of the action 17 and to eliminate unnecessary technicality in connection with service of process.” Electrical 18 Specialty Co. v. Road and Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 314 (9th Cir. 1992), citing 4 C. 19 Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1061, at 216 (2d ed. 1987). Due Process 20 requires that any service of notice be “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise 21 interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 22 objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). 23 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), the Court looks to the law of California, the state in 24 which this Court sits, to determine the sufficiency of the proposed service. Regarding posting, it 25 appears that California permits posting for service in unlawful detainer actions. See Cal. Civ. P. 26 § 415.45. That said, there is an alternative method to personal service at the address of the 27 person to be served: 1 If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as 2 specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at 3 the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal 4 Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, 5 place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who 6 shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, 7 postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a 8 summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing. 9 Cal. Civ. P. § 415.20. This method requires a plaintiff also serve the complaint via first-class 10 mail, and therefore, Plaintiff’s request to serve via mail collapses into this provision as well. 11 For Plaintiff’s request for personal delivery on Defendant’s mother at her place of 12 employment, a hair salon, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any legal authority for this 13 method of service by itself. Though this is not a traditional service method, Plaintiff proffers that 14 it should be approved because Defendant Shepard’s mother is a co-defendant in this action, and 15 it is part of a comprehensive service plan. 16 While the California Code includes no explicit provision for service by email, it provides 17 a broad framework for alternative means of service: 18 Where no provision is made in this chapter or other law for the 19 service of summons, the court in which the action is pending may direct that summons be served in a manner which is reasonably 20 calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served and that proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court. 21 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30. “To be sure, the Constitution does not require any particular 22 means of service of process, only that the method selected be reasonably calculated to provide 23 notice and an opportunity to respond.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 24 1017 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing 25 service by regular mail and e-mail after initial attempts at service failed). 26 Here, Plaintiff has made reasonable and diligent attempts to inform Defendant Shepard of 27 this action, including attempting to serve Defendant with the resources of the office of Plaintiff’s 1 counsel, as well as Plaintiff contracting with a process server. Moreover, it appears that service 2 was attempted on verified physical addresses associated with Defendant Shepard. (ECF No. 24, 3 Exhs. A-C.) Regarding Defendant’s email address, Plaintiff observes that the address, 4 shepardcelia@gmail.com, is a formulation of Defendant’s name and that Defendant Shepard 5 recently updated a profile picture associated with the email that confirms the email address is 6 associated with her. (ECF No. 26, p. 4.) 7 Although Defendant Shepard has a well-documented history of verifiable contact 8 information, Plaintiff has been unable to effect service on Defendant on several different 9 occasions. When there is evidence that a defendant is evading service, courts are more willing to 10 allow alternative methods of service. See Miller v. Superior Court In & For Los Angeles Cnty., 11 195 Cal. App. 2d 779, 786 (“A person who deliberately conceals himself to evade service of 12 process is scarcely in a position to complain over much of unfairness in substitutive methods of 13 notification enacted by the Legislature to cope with such situations”); Steve McCurry Studios, 14 LLC v. Web2Web Mktg., Inc., No. C 13-80246 WHA, 2014 WL 1877547, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 15 9, 2014) (allowing service of defendant by email, where defendant demonstrated a pattern of 16 evading service: despite process server’s eight attempts to serve defendant at his last-known 17 address, plaintiff counsel’s email to defendant asking to set up a meeting, and defendant’s 18 informal agreements to meet with plaintiff’s counsel, defendant never showed up and stopped 19 responding to emails); Miller v. Ceres Unified School Dist., No. 1:15-cv-0029-BAM, 2016 WL 20 4702754, at *3-*4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2016). 21 In light of the forgoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that he 22 has taken several reasonable steps to effect service upon Defendant Celia Frances Pedraza 23 Shepard. Despite reasonable diligence, process cannot be served on Defendant Shepard at her 24 addresses of record. Similarly, the Court is satisfied with Plaintiff’s explanation that the email 25 address he proposes to use for service will reasonably give the party adequate notice. Thus, 26 under the circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate to permit alternative service and will 27 grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve Defendant Celia Frances Pedraza Shepard via the 1 Moreover, the Court also agrees with Plaintiff insofar as that the proffered service plan— 2 | posting, mailing, email, and delivery to Defendant’s mother—is, in combination with email, 3 | reasonably calculated to provide notice to Defendant Shepard. Therefore, the Court will also 4 | grant Plaintiff's motion as to service on Defendant Shepard by posting, mailing, and delivery to 5 | Defendant’s mother. 6 Il. 7 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The motion for alternative means of service of process is GRANTED (ECF 10 No. 24); 11 2. Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of this order in which to effect service 12 on Defendant Celia Frances Pedraza Shepard via email, posting, mailing, and 13 delivery to Defendant Shepard’s mother; 14 3. On or before January 5, 2026, Plaintiff SHALL also file a status report indicating 15 the status service and/or communication with Defendant Celia Frances Pedraza 16 Shepard. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF nf Se 19 | Dated: _December 12, 2025 _ eS STANLEY A. BOONE 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28