Aussieker v. Aghazadeh
2:25-cv-00888
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Mark Aussieker filed a putative class action alleging TCPA violations by defendant Omid Aghazadeh (d/b/a Golden Capitalholdings).
- Plaintiff claimed to have served Aghazadeh personally on March 29, 2025, after repeated attempts, including an occasion where the individual refused service but was identified using social media.
- Aghazadeh, representing himself, argued that service was invalid because he was not at the residence when papers were left.
- Plaintiff submitted a process server affidavit and photographs supporting her identification of Aghazadeh during service attempts.
- Defendant moved to quash service as defective under Rule 4, while plaintiff alternatively requested additional time or alternative service options.
- The court declined to authorize service by email, instead ordering service by mail under California law, and granted a 30-day extension for service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process was valid | Service was effective; defendant was personally identified/refused service | Service was invalid; he was not present or identified at the address | Service not quashed; plaintiff granted time to serve by mail |
| Whether additional service methods should be allowed | Sought leave for alternative service methods if existing service was insufficient | Opposed alternative service and extension; maintains service was not effective | Alternative service by email denied; mail authorized |
| Whether extension of time to serve is warranted | Good faith efforts made; asks for more time if service was ineffective | Opposed extension, arguing insufficient diligence | 30-day extension for service granted |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary | Evidence and process server identification suffice | Contradicts process server's identification with sworn statement | Hearing unnecessary; mail service sufficient remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) (burden on plaintiff to show sufficiency of service under Rule 4)
- Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat’l Bank, 538 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1976) (court may dismiss or allow cure for ineffective service)
- S.E.C. v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2007) (signed return is prima facie evidence of valid service)
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2009) (service sufficient if evasion prevents further compliance with Rule 4)