MEMORANDUM REGARDING PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS


RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI LLP
Headquarters Plaza
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07962-1981
Telephone: (973) 538-0800

GONZALEZ SAGGIO & HARLAN LLP
Cristina D. Hernandez (SBN 283500)
2 N. Lake Ave., Suite 930
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 440-0022
Facsimile: (626) 6281725

Attorneys for Plaintiff UBS Bank USA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UBS BANK USA, an industrial bank,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

BROCK PIERCE, an individual,

 Defendant.

Case No. CV13-03418-BRO-PLA

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM
REGARDING PROPER SERVICE OF
PROCESS


Hearing: November 4, 2013
Time: 1:30 pm

Complaint Filed: May 13, 2013


 Per this Court’s Order to Show Cause dated October 28, 2013 (entered October 29,
2013), plaintiff UBS Bank USA submits this memorandum demonstrating that defendant
Brock Pierce was properly served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
§ 415.20(b). In further support of this submission, Plaintiff submits herewith the Proof of
Service of Summons and Complaint (Ex. 1), the Proof of Service by Mail (Ex. 2), the
Case 2:13-cv-03418-BRO-PLA Document 16 Filed 10/30/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:95
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS


Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence of Leon Moore of First Legal Support Services (Ex.
3), and the Affidavit of Cristina D. Hernandez (Ex. 4).
1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) requires that service be made by a person who is at least
18 years old and not a party to the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) further
states that service of an individual may be accomplished by “following state law for
serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state
where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
2. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 415.10 et seq. sets forth the various methods for
effectuating proper service of process on individuals in California. Section 415.10 states
that service may be made by personal delivery of the summons to the person being
serviced. If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with “reasonable diligence” be
personally delivered to the person to be served, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20 states that
substituted service can be effectuated by, among other things, leaving a copy of the
summons at the party’s “usual place of business…in the presence of… a person
apparently in charge of his or her office [or] place of business” and who is at least 18
years of age and informed of the contents thereof. In such circumstance, a copy of the
summons has to also be mailed to the person served “at the place where a copy of the
summons and complaint were left.” Id.
3. California courts have found that three attempts at service constitutes
“reasonable diligence.” See, e.g., Trackman v. Kenney, 187 Cal. App. 4th
 175, 185-186
(Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2010).
4. Here, plaintiff engaged First Legal Support Services to effectuate service.
Leon Moore, a registered California process server (Registration No. 4306), attempted
service on defendant Brock Pierce on five occasions, as he attested to under oath in his
Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence (Moore Aff. Ex. 3). Those occasions were as follows:

Case 2:13-cv-03418-BRO-PLA Document 16 Filed 10/30/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:96
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS


a. On Friday, May 17, 2013 at 7:45pm, Mr. Moore attempted service at Mr.
Pierce’s home address (650 Sunset Avenue, Venice, CA 90291). The
home was dark and there was no answer at the gate. Id.
b. On Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 1:00pm, Mr. Moore made his second
attempt at service at Mr. Pierce’s home address. There again was no
answer, and the process server saw at the home addressed to Mr. Pierce,
thus confirming that the address was, in fact, Mr. Pierce’s residence. Id.
c. On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 9:10pm, Mr. Moore made his third attempt
at service at Mr. Pierce’s home address. Again, there was no answer. Id.
d. On Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:45pm, Mr. Moore made his fourth
attempt at service at Mr. Pierce’s workplace – 310 Wilshire Blvd., Santa
Monica, CA 90401. Id. The business located at that address is Playsino;
Playsino’s website states that Mr. Pierce is the Chairman of that
company. (Hernandez Aff. Ex. 4, at 4). Mr. Pierce’s LinkedIn profile
also lists Playsino as his business from April 2012 to the present. Id. at ¶
5. When Mr. Moore attempted service, an employee at the office told
Mr. Moore that Mr. Pierce was not in and that his return time/date was
unknown. (Moore Aff. Ex. 3).
e. On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 3:30pm, Mr. Moore made his fifth
attempt at service at Mr. Pierce’s last known place of work. An
employee again said that Mr. Pierce was not in. Id.
5. After five total attempts at service, Mr. Moore effectuated substituted
service on Mr. Pierce by serving a copy of the summons and complaint to a person at
least 18 years of age and in charge of Mr. Pierce’s business – Michael Steuer, the Chief
Technology Officer of Playsino. Id. Playsino’s website confirms that Mr. Steuer is the
company’s Chief Technology Officer. (Hernandez Aff. Ex. 4, at 4). Mr. Moore further
sent Mr. Pierce a copy of the summons and complaint via mail to Mr. Pierce at Playsino’s
address. (Moore Aff. Ex. 3).
Case 2:13-cv-03418-BRO-PLA Document 16 Filed 10/30/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:97
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS


6. By attempting service three times at Mr. Pierce’s home address and twice at
Mr. Pierce’s place of business, then serving Mr. Pierce at his business address with a
person at least 18 years of age and in charge of the office, then mailing a copy of the
summons and complaint to the same address, Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for
service under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20.
7. Moreover, since the date of service, Plaintiff has sent all copies of all filings
via mail to Mr. Pierce at his home and work addresses. The mail has not been returned.
(Hernandez Aff. Ex. 4, at 6).
In summary, Plaintiff made extensive efforts to serve Mr. Pierce in person, and
when that was not possible Plaintiff then adhered to the requirements of California law
for substituted service of process. Plaintiff further endeavored to give Mr. Pierce notice
of this action and the pending motion for default judgment by delivering all papers to him
via mail to his known home and work address. For whatever reason, Mr. Pierce has
elected not to appear in these proceedings. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (and supporting documentation), and this
Memorandum, Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted.

Dated: October 30, 2013 GONZALEZ SAGGIO & HARLAN LLP

 /s Cristina D. Hernandez

 Cristina D. Hernandez

RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND &
PERRETTI LLP
Headquarters Plaza
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07962-1981

 Attorneys for Plaintiff UBS Bank USA

Case 2:13-cv-03418-BRO-PLA Document 16 Filed 10/30/13 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:98
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT was filed
through the ECF system and will be served via U.S. Mail to the following on October 30,
2013:
Brock Pierce
650 Sunset Avenue
Venice, CA 90291-2733

310 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90401


 /s/ Cristina D. Hernandez
 Cristina D. Hernandez

Case 2:13-cv-03418-BRO-PLA Document 16 Filed 10/30/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:99