Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 893
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Stanford sued Ham for unlawful detainer after Ham failed to pay rent and vacate the premises.
- Ham resided at the Durand Way apartment; annual rent history included a temporary below-market-rate arrangement until 2009.
- Personal service attempts on Ham in May 2010 failed because Ham was on the East Coast; landlord sought alternative service.
- Judge Kleinberg authorized posting and mailing service under CCP 415.45 after unsuccessful personal service attempts.
- Ham did not receive the posted notice; default judgment entered June 7, 2010; landlord possession took place June 17, 2010.
- Ham moved to vacate the default judgment in December 2010, arguing inadequate diligence and improper service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does posting and mailing after failed personal service meet reasonable diligence under 415.45? | Five personal attempts show reasonable diligence. | More thorough diligence required beyond five attempts. | Yes; posting and mailing was reasonable diligence under 415.45. |
| Should 415.45 be interpreted the same as 415.50's reasonable diligence standard? | Should apply general diligence considerations analogous to 415.50. | Diligence standard under 415.45 is distinct and requires the posting path when other methods fail. | 415.45 is distinct from 415.50; posting allowed with reasonable diligence under 415.45. |
| Was substituted service under 415.20 a viable alternative given Ham's location and contact information? | There was no viable alternative; posting was appropriate. | Substituted service could have been pursued if reasonable diligence failed. | Substituted service not viable here; posting was justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444 (1982) (posting notice can violate due process if not properly preceded by diligence)
- Watts v. Crawford, 10 Cal.4th 743 (1995) (reasonable diligence for publication same as last-resort notice considerations)
- American Exp. Centurion Bank v. Zara, 199 Cal.App.4th 383 (2011) (two or three attempts to personal service ordinarily qualify as reasonable diligence)
- Evartt v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.3d 795 (1979) (outlined preferred order of service methods and notice principles)
- Donel, Inc. v. Badalian, 87 Cal.App.3d 327 (1978) (no single formula for due diligence; facts matter)