govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_26-cv-01560-0

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
RILEY COCHRAN-HERNANDEZ, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL 
DISTRICT; JEFFRY REMINGTON; 
MATT COSTA, 
Defendants. 
No. 2:26-cv-01560-JAM-SCR 
 
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 
MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 
OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANTS JEFFRY 
REMINGTON AND MATT COSTA 
 
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Riley Cochran-
Hernandez’s unopposed Motion for Alternative Service of Process 
on Defendants Jeffry Remington (“Remington”) and Matt Costa 
(“Costa”) (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”). ECF No. 
8. Plaintiff asks that the Court grant him leave to effect 
service on Remington and Costa by emailing a copy of the Summons 
and Complaint to their attorney, Matthew C. Jaime, Esq., because 
“(1) the Individual Defendants are aware of this action and have 
retained counsel; (2) the Individual Defendants’ counsel has 
refused to accept service on their behalf despite multiple 
requests by Plaintiff’s counsel; and (3) Plaintiff has been 
unable to serve the Individual Defendants despite making 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2 
 
 
reasonable efforts to serve them at their last known residential 
addresses.” Id. at 2. 
The Court grants this request. An individual within a 
judicial district of the United States may be served 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). California law permits five basic methods of service: 
(1) personal delivery to the person to be served; (2) substituted 
service; (3) service by mail with acknowledgment of receipt; 
(4) service on persons outside the state by certified or 
registered mail with a return receipt requested; and (5) service 
by publication. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 415.10, 415.20, 415.30, 
415.40, 415.50. Alternatively, Section 413.30 permits courts to 
“direct that the summons be served in a manner which is 
reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be 
served and that such proof of service be made as prescribed by 
the court.” Id. § 413.30. Courts have permitted service by 
email for defendants within the United States under Section 
413.30 where “the plaintiff demonstrated reasonable diligence in 
its attempts to serve the defendants” and “service by email is 
reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the defendants.” 
See Gnathonic, LLC v. Dingman, No. 2:19-cv-01502-VAP-SSx, 2019 WL 
13166751, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2019) (quoting Cisco Sys. Inc. 
v. Shaitor, No. 18-CV-00480-LB, 2018 WL 3109398, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 
June 25, 2018)). 
The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated reasonable 
diligence for the reasons stated in Plaintiff’s Motion, namely 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 3 
 
 
that “a process server has been unable to serve either defendant, 
despite making three successive attempts to serve both 
individuals,” and that Plaintiff’s counsel “made four attempts to 
contact the Individual Defendants’ counsel, who never responded, 
despite initiating contact by sending a letter to Plaintiff’s 
counsel requesting proofs of service.” ECF No. 8 at 3–4. The 
Court also finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated service via 
email is reasonably calculated to give the Individual Defendants 
notice of this action. The Individual Defendants’ counsel 
reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel to inform them he is 
representing the Individual Defendants in this action. See id. 
Thus, it is reasonable to assume the Individual Defendants’ 
counsel has the means to contact the Individual Defendants and 
can forward them the Summons and Complaint. Accordingly, the 
Court will permit Plaintiff to effect service on the Individual 
Defendants via email to their counsel. 
The Court also finds, however, that Plaintiff has not fully 
exhausted the other means of service provided for in California 
Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.10 through 415.50, such as 
service by mail. Thus, the Court orders Plaintiff to attempt 
service by mail along with email service. See, e.g., Barnes v. 
Scola, No. 25-cv-10837-RS, 2026 WL 125613, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 
16, 2026) (authorizing alternative service via email as well as 
by mail). 
I. ORDER 
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Riley Cochran-
Hernandez’s Motion for Alternative Service of Process on 
Defendants Jeffrey Remington and Matt Costa (ECF No. 8) is 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 4 
 
 
GRANTED. Plaintiff may effect service of process on Defendants 
Remington and Costa by emailing a copy of the Summons and 
Complaint to their counsel, Matthew C. Jaime, Esq., within one 
business day of this Order with the instruction to forward such 
information to Defendants Remington and Costa. A copy of this 
Order shall be included in the email. 
Plaintiff must also attempt service of the Summons and 
Complaint on Defendants Remington and Costa by mail as provided 
for in California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30 within 
three business days of this Order. A copy of this Order shall be 
included in the mail. 
Plaintiff shall thereafter file proofs of service with the 
Court. Defendants Remington and Costa’s response to the 
Complaint shall be due twenty-one (21) days after Plaintiff has 
filed said proofs of service. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 9, 2026 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight