Stinson v. Nejah
This text of Stinson v. Nejah (Stinson v. Nejah) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 RONNIE STINSON, Case No. 23-cv-04858-LB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING SERVICE BY 13 v. EMAIL
14 ALLEN NEJAH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 One defendant in this case, Allen Nejah, has not been served yet. Because the plaintiff is 18 proceeding in forma pauperis, service must be by a U.S. marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Two 19 attempts have already been made for service by personal delivery.1 This order is for a U.S. 20 marshal to attempt service by email. 21 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), a plaintiff may serve an individual defendant 22 using any method permitted by the law of the state in which the district court is located or in 23 which service is effected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). California law allows for five basic methods of 24 service: (1) personal delivery to the party, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10; (2) delivery to 25 someone else at the party’s usual residence or place of business with mailing after (known as 26 “substitute service”), see id. § 415.20; (3) service by mail with acknowledgment of receipt, see id. 27 ] § 415.30; (4) service on persons outside the state by certified or registered mail with a return 2 || receipt requested, see id. § 415.40; and (5) service by publication, see id. § 415.50. California 3 Code of Civil Procedure § 413.30 also provides that a court “may direct that summons be served 4 |} ina manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party served.” Courts in this 5 district have authorized service by email under California Civil Procedure Code § 413.30. See, 6 e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Shaitor, No. 18-cv-00480-LB, 2018 WL 3109398, at *3—4 (N.D. Cal. June 7 || 25,2018); Steve McCurry Studios, LLC v. Web2Web Mktg., Inc., No. C 13-80246 WHA, 2014 8 WL 1877547, at *2—3 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2014); Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, LLC, No. C-11- 9 || 3619 YGR, 2012 WL 1038752, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012). 10 The court directs the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Allen Nejah at the following email 11 address: Kayfariba@gmail.com. Steve McCurry Studios, 2014 WL 1877547, at *2 (email service 12 || is permissible following “‘reasonable’ attempts to serve” by other means).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Ld EC 3 15 Dated: February 20, 2024 LAUREL BEELER 16 United States Magistrate Judge
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Stinson v. Nejah, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stinson-v-nejah-cand-2024.