Appellants, corporation, officers, and sole shareholders, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which granted respondent contractor default judgment in respondent’s breach of contract action against appellants. Appellants alleged that service of process was ineffective under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(b).

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. informs on how to calculate PAGA penalties

Overview

Respondent contractors obtained default judgment against appellants, corporation, officers, and sole shareholders, in their breach of contract action. Appellants attacked the sufficiency of service under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(b). The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. It held that service of process upon the gate guard at the residence of appellant officers and appellant sole shareholders constituted effective substituted service on appellants under § 415.20(b). The court reasoned that prior good-faith, reasonably diligent attempts to personally serve appellants had failed and that the relationship between the gate guard and appellants made it more likely than not that the gate guard would deliver process to appellants. The court found that service on its president constituted effective service as to appellant corporation.

Outcome

The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. It held that respondent contractors had obtained effective substituted service on appellants, corporation, officers, and sole shareholders serving the gate guard at the residence of appellant officers and appellant sole shareholders. The court found that the relationship between these appellants and the gate guard made it more likely than not that appellants would receive process.