Case Information
*1 Case 4:13-cv-03244-YGR Document 12 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 2 1
2
3 U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
4 N ORTHERN D ISTRICT OF C ALIFORNIA 5
6
7
8 L ITHIUM T ECHNOLOGIES , I NC ., Case No.: 13-CV-3244 YGR 9 Plaintiff, O RDER D ENYING WITHOUT P REJUDICE P LAINTIFF ’ S A PPLICATION FOR AN O RDER TO S HOW C AUSE R EGARDING P RELIMINARY I NJUNCTION AND T EMPORARY R ESTRAINING O RDER v.
D ALLAS T HOMPSON , Defendant.
On July 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Application for an Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order Pending Binding Arbitration against Defendant, a natural person and resident of the state of Texas. Dkt. No. 4. The Court hereby D ENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court must exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant to enjoin him, and Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
Defendant. As set forth below, it has not met that burden.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize plaintiffs in a federal civil action to effect service of a summons on an individual through any means authorized by the state in which the district court sits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Accordingly, this Court is satisfied by service of a summons in a manner prescribed by California law. On August 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Certificate of Service which represented that the summons and other papers had been served on a receptionist at the law firm where, according to Plaintiff, Defendant’s attorney works. See Dkt. No. 11. The Certificate indicates that service of the summons was effected pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(a). Id. However, under California law, service of summonses is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.10 et seq. The code section cited by Plaintiff *2 Case 4:13-cv-03244-YGR Document 12 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 2 authorizes service on a defendant’s attorney of notices , as distinct from summonses, and then only after the defendant has appeared and personal jurisdiction has attached. See 50A Cal. Jur. 3d §§ 77 (service of notice distinct from service of summons , only latter of which confers jurisdiction), 88 (permitting only notice to be served on attorney); see also Smith v. Smith , 120 Cal. App. 2d 474, 483 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953) (parties in a continuous proceeding may be served with notice through their attorneys “once personal jurisdiction has properly attached”). Nothing in the record before the Court suggests that Defendant has been served with a summons in a manner consistent with either California or federal law. Accordingly, the Court determines that it does not yet exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Plaintiff’s Motion is D ENIED WITHOUT P REJUDICE .
This Order terminates Docket No. 4. I T I S S O O RDERED . Dated: August 12, 2013 _______________________________________ Y VONNE G ONZALEZ R OGERS U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT J UDGE
2