Project Sentinel v. Komar ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PROJECT SENTINEL, No. 1:19-cv-00708-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 14 JEANETTE KOMAR and SARAH CONCERNING SERVICE OF PROCESS KOMAR, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Project Sentinel’s (“Plaintiff’s”) motion for a default 18 judgment against Defendants Jeanette Komar and Sarah Komar (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 68). 19 Before awarding a default judgment against a defendant, a court must determine the 20 adequacy of service of process. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of 21 judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a district court has 22 an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties.”); cf. 23 S.E.C. v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We review de novo 24 whether default judgment is void because of lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient 25 service of process.”). 26 On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed executed summonses for Defendants and then-defendant 27 Meyer Komar. (ECF Nos. 4-6).1 The filings indicated that Meyer Komar was served personally at 28 1 It appears that Meyer Komar has since passed away. (ECF No. 76). He is no longer a defendant in this action. (Id.). 1 1523 Gary Lane, Modesto, California, 95355, and the process server left additional copies of the 2 relevant documents with Meyer Komar to serve Defendants. (Id.). The returned summonses do 3 not state that the documents were subsequently mailed to that or any other address. 4 Plaintiff argues that this was proper service on Defendants because “Public records show 5 that Defendants Jeanette Komar and Sarah Komar reside at the same residence. (Cristol-Deman 6 Dec. ¶ 16.)” (ECF No. 69 at 7-8). That paragraph in Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states: 7 Deeds recorded in Stanislaus County also showed that Meyer and Jeanette Komar own a single-family house located at 1523 Gary Lane in Modesto as “Meyer 8 Komar and Jeanette M. Komar, husband and wife as joint tenants.” The process 9 server we hired located Meyer Komar at that address and served him with the summons and complaint on June 24, 2019. The process server also served 10 Jeanette Komar and Sarah Komar by substituted service on Meyer Komar. 11 (ECF No. 71 at 5). Counsel attached a copy of that deed as Exhibit 4 to her declaration, and it 12 shows that Meyer and Jeanette Komar owned that property. (ECF No. 71-4 at 3). Thus, the cited 13 paragraph provides sufficient public records showing that Meyer Komar and Jeanette Komar 14 lived at the address. But the records do not show that Sarah Komar lived there. 15 Plaintiff appears to rely on service pursuant to Federal Rule 4(e)(2)(B). (See ECF No. 71 16 at 10) (counsel declaring she gave Jeanette Komar “an explanation of substituted service under 17 Rule 4(e)(2)(B)”). That rule permits service by “leaving a copy of [the summons and complaint] 18 at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion 19 who resides there[.]” However, Plaintiff does not attach any such public records. 20 Accordingly, the Court gives Plaintiff leave to supplement her motion to include public 21 records indicating that Sarah Komar’s dwelling or usual place of abode was 1523 Gary Lane. 22 If Plaintiff intends to rely on a different method for proper service, such as substituted 23 service under California Code of Civil Procedure 415.20(b), Plaintiff may explain that as well 24 along with any supporting documents. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days of the date of service of 2 | this order, Plaintiff may file supplemental information regarding service on Sarah Komar. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. S| Dated: _ March 4, 2021 hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28