Gary S. Hann v. Christopher Compton, 5:25-cv-00165

The plaintiff requested the court to approve alternative service via email or, alternatively, for an extension of the service deadline after previously receiving an extension for service of process.
The court had previously warned the plaintiff that no further extensions would be granted.
The plaintiff identified two physical addresses for the defendants but provided no explanation for not attempting service at these locations.
The court's review focused on whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in attempting service through normal means before seeking alternative service.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate such diligence and did not show that email would likely result in actual notice to all defendants.
The court denied the plaintiff's request for alternative service and required that service be completed by a specified deadline, warning dismissal otherwise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authorization of email as alternative service	Permitted under CA law if reasonably calculated to give notice	Not presented	Denied; plaintiff must first show diligence under other means
Extension of time for service	Further extension should be granted	Not presented	Denied; no further extensions allowed
Diligence in effecting service	Implied diligence; sought alternative service	Not presented	Plaintiff did not act diligently as required
Adequacy of proof for alternative service emails	Email addresses sufficient for notice	Not presented	Not shown; especially for at least one defendant

None of the cases referenced in the opinion have official reporter citations requiring Bluebook format; only unpublished federal Westlaw citations were referenced in this order.