Doe v. Omega Compliance Solutions, LLC et al

1
25cv3613-JES-JLB
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 29,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OMEGA COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25cv3613-JES-JLB
ORDER:
(1) DENYING MOTION FOR
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE; and
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF
PROCESS
[ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16]
Before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiffs: (1) a motion seeking the Court
to authorize alternative service on Defendants Omega Compliance Solutions, LLC, Henry
G. Gamino, and Rick Gamino (ECF No. 14); and (2) a motion seeking the Court to
authorize electronic service of Defendant Karla Parra (ECF Nos. 15, 16). The Court will
address each request in turn below.
I. Service on Defendants Omega Compliance Solutions, LLC, Henry G. Gamino,
and Rick Gamino
Defendant Omega Compliance Solutions, LLC (“Omega”) is a limited liability
company formed in California, and Defendants Henry and Rick Gamino are individuals
Case 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 8

2
25cv3613-JES-JLB
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
that reside in California. ECF No. 14 at 1-2. Plaintiffs state that they have failed to effect
service on these Defendants after several attempts and are seeking alternative means of
service.
Plaintiffs document the following service attempts as to Defendant Omega:
1. December 30, 2025: Attempted service to registered agent (Henry Gamino) at
614 Pioneer Way, El Cajon, California 92020, the address provided on the
California Secretary of State’s website. The process server noted the property
“appeared vacant which was supported by empty inside and empty lot.” ECF No.
14-2 at 1.
2. December 30, 2025: Attempted service to registered agent (Henry Gamino) at his
last known address. The process server noted that no one answered and home
appeared empty. Id., Ex. B. The server returned in the evening and reported
speaking to an individual who identified himself as the son of Henry Gamino.
The son told the server that he was not authorized to accept service on behalf of
his father or the company. ECF No. 14-3.
3. January 2, 2026: Attempted service at Henry Gamino’s home again, but no
answer. Id.
4. January 4, 2026: Attempted service at Henry Gamino’s home again with no
answer. The process server reported speaking to a neighbor who did not
recognize the name. Id.
5. January 6, 2026: Attempted service at Henry Gamino’s home again and minor
son answered. Id. The process server stated that the son said his father was not
home and is in Mexico City, and he had no idea when his father would return. Id.
As to Henry Gamino, Plaintiffs document the following attempts following phone
attempts, in addition to the attempts described above that took place at his residence:
1. December 30, 2025: Process server called the phone number provided by
Plaintiffs purported to belong to Henry Gamino. A male answered who the
process server claims to be Henry Gamino, and told him that he was in Mexico
for the holidays and was not expected to return until the following week. ECF
No. 14-4.
2. January 2, 2026: Process server called same phone number and left voicemail,
requesting return call. Id.
Case 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 8

3
25cv3613-JES-JLB
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. January 4, 2026: Process server called same phone number and left voicemail,
requesting return call. Id. Later the same day, Henry Gamino returned the call but
process server reports “unable to connect or confirm convenient time to deliver
legal documents.” Id.
4. January 6, 2026: Process server called same phone number and reported being
unable to leave message. Id.
As to Rick Gamino, Plaintiffs state that they were told on January 6, 2026, by the
minor that Rick Gamino does live there but was in Mexico City without a return date. ECF
No. 14-5. In addition, Plaintiffs document the following phone attempts:
1. January 6, 2026: Process server called two numbers for Rick Gamino reported to
belong to him by Plaintiffs, with no answer and ability to leave a voicemail. Id.
2. January 9, 2026: Process server went to home but no one was home. He also
called same two numbers. For the first number ending in 1251, he was able to
leave a voicemail. For the second number ending in 5074, he was not. Id.
3. January 10, 2026: Process server went to home again and spoke to someone who
identified himself as a sibling. Id. Only minors were available at the time and
stated that they could not accept service. Id. Process server again called same two
numbers. For the first number ending in 1251, he was able to leave a voicemail.
For the second number ending in 5074, he was not. Id.
4. January 10, 2026: Process server again called same two numbers. For the first
number ending in 1251, he stated that he spoke to a male who identified himself
as Rick Gamino but he refused to cooperate and hung up on him. For the second
number ending in 5074, he again was not able to leave voicemail. Id.
A. Defendants Henry and Rick Gamino
As to the individual defendants, Plaintiffs seek alternative service in the form of
“service via electronic mail to any known personal or business email addresses; service by
mail to their last known residential addresses; and service by publication only if the
foregoing methods are unsuccessful or the Court determines publication is necessary.” ECF
No. 14 at 5.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), an individual may be served in any
manner prescribed by state law of the state in which the district court is located or in which
Case 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 8

4
25cv3613-JES-JLB
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
service is effected.1 California law provides for service inside the state of California by:
(1) personal delivery pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10; (2) delivery to someone
of suitable age at the party’s usual residence or place of business with mailing after
pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20; (3) service by mail pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 415.30; (4) service by publication if “upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of
the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable
diligence be served in another manner specified in this article” pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 415.50. Further, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30, “if a plaintiff, despite
exercising reasonable diligence, has been unable to effect service of the summons by any
of the methods authorized under this chapter,” a court may authorize service in any
“manner that is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served,
including by electronic mail or other electronic technology, and that proof of such service
be made as prescribed by the court.”
Plaintiffs request this Court to authorize “service by mail to their last known
residential addresses.” The Court notes that this is a statutorily permitted means to effect
service as long as Plaintiffs adhere to the requirements laid out in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
415.30, and Plaintiffs do not need to seek court permission. There is no indication in the
submitted papers that Plaintiffs have attempted to effect service this way. Thus, the Court
DENIES AS MOOT the request to effect ““service by mail to their last known residential
addresses.”
The remaining two requests—to effect service by email or by publication—would
only be in consideration if the other methods fail. Publication is permitted under Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code § 415.50 only upon a showing that the party cannot be served with “reasonable
1 Rule 4(e)(2) also provides for services by doing any of the following: “(A) delivering a copy of the
summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s
dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C)
delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.”
It does not appear that Plaintiffs are seeking these message to effect service.
Case 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 8

5
25cv3613-JES-JLB
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
diligence be served in another manner specified in this article.” Email service is permitted
under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30 only if “a plaintiff, despite exercising reasonable
diligence, has been unable to effect service of the summons by any of the methods
authorized under this chapter.” The Court will not consider authorization of these other
forms of service until Plaintiffs can show due diligence, including service by mail as
prescribed by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30. See Carson v. Griffin, No. 13-CV-0520 KAW,
2013 WL 1636408, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) (“If Plaintiff has met the requirements
of Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.30, there is no need for alternate service by email on these
Defendants.”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the requests
to effect service by these other methods.
B. Defendant Omega
As to this limited liability company Defendant, Plaintiffs seek the Court to authorize
service by “service on the California Secretary of State pursuant to California Corporations
Code § 17701.16(c); service via electronic mail to known business email addresses used
by the company; and service by mail to its last known principal business address.” ECF
No. 14 at 4.
An LLC may be served in any manner prescribed for serving an individual, including
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(h)(1)(A), (e)(1). California Corporations Code § 17701.16(c) states that:
[I]f the designated agent cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the
address designated for personal delivery of the process, and it is shown by
affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against [the LLC] cannot
be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the
manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or
subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court
may make an order that the service shall be made upon the [LLC] by
delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the
Secretary of State’s office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of
the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order
Case 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 8

6
25cv3613-JES-JLB
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
authorizing such service. Service in this manner is deemed complete on the
10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.
Again, like with the individual defendants discussed above, Plaintiffs request the
Court to permit them to effect service by mail, but this is statutorily permitted in Section
415.30 as long as Plaintiffs adhere to those requirements. There is no indication that
Plaintiffs have attempted service this way. Thus, this request is DENIED AS MOOT for
the same reasons as above.
Plaintiffs also request to effect service on Omega through the California Secretary
of State. But this can only be ordered upon a showing of reasonable diligence by other
methods, including 415.30, which Plaintiffs have not shown. Cal. Corp. Code
§ 17701.16(c). Similarly, for service by email, that can only be permitted by Section 413.30
and only if “a plaintiff, despite exercising reasonable diligence, has been unable to effect
service of the summons by any of the methods authorized under this chapter.” The Court
will not consider authorization of these other forms of service until Plaintiffs can show due
diligence, including service by mail as prescribed by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the requests to effect service
by these other methods for Omega.
II. Service of Defendant Karla Parra
In the motion regarding Defendant Karla Parra (“Parra”), Plaintiffs seek
authorization for the Court to permit them to serve her using her email and WhatsApp
contact information. ECF No. 16. Parra appears to reside in Tijuana, Baja California,
Mexico and does not have an address here in the United States. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs recognize
that Mexico and the United States are both signatories to the Hague Convention (the
“Convention”), and service of process should proceed according to the Convention. Id.
However, Plaintiffs argue that service through the Mexico Central Authority, as required
under the Convention, would require certified Spanish translations of pleadings, would
take six to twelve months or longer, and face a significant risk of non-service due to
Case 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 8

7
25cv3613-JES-JLB
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
administrative or logistical issues. Id. at 2-3. Thus, Plaintiffs seek this Court to authorize
electronic service under Federal Rule of Civil 4(f)(3).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service on an individual in a foreign
country. Under 4(f)(1), service is authorized “by any internationally agreed means of
service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.” Section
4(f)(2) then governs service where there is “no internationally agreed means, or if an
international agreement allows but does not specify other means.” Finally, section 4(f)(3)
permit service “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court
orders.”
“[C]ompliance with the [Hague] Convention is mandatory in all cases to which it
applies” and provides “the exclusive means of valid service.” Volkswagenwerk
Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 705-06 (1988). Thus, service to an individual
who lives in Mexico must comply with the Convention. OGM, Inc. v. Televisa, S.A. de
C.V., No. CV 08-5742-JFW (JCx), 2009 WL 1025971, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2009)
(“Because the United States and Mexico are both signatories to the Hague Convention, the
Hague Convention provides the exclusive means by which Plaintiff can serve [the Mexican
defendant].”); Wright v. Old Gringo Inc., No. 17-CV-1996-BAS-NLS, 2018 WL 3584483,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 26, 2018) (holding same).
The Court finds Plaintiffs’ reliance on Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284
F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2002), to be misplaced. In that case, the defendant was from
Costa Rica, a country that is not a signatory to the Convention. Thus, the court there
decided only the interplay between Rule 4(f)(2) and Rule 4(f)(3)—not about Rule 4(f)(1).
Indeed, many district courts in this Circuit have rejected similar arguments relying on Rio
for the position that adherence to the Hague Convention is not mandatory. See, e.g.,
Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Fenda USA Inc., 734 F. Supp. 3d 960, 965 (N.D. Cal. 2024)
(“That decision [Rio], however, does not address the issue before this Court, because Costa
Rica is not a signatory to the Convention.”); Viral DRM LLC v. Romero, No. 24-CV-
Case 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 8

8
25cv3613-JES-JLB
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
07060-RFL, 2025 WL 3240803, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) (holding same);
Facebook, Inc. v. 9 Xiu Network (Shenzhen) Tech. Co., 480 F. Supp. 3d 977, 984–87 (N.D.
Cal. 2020) (holding same). Thus, these courts have concluded that Rule 4(f)(3) only
permits an alternative means of service “when an exception to the Convention applies or
when the Convention isn’t implicated (e.g., because the defendant is based in a country
that isn’t a signatory to the Convention).” Facebook, 480 F. Supp. 3d at 986.
Specifically, courts have rejected authorizing email or other electronic means to
effect service where the defendant is from a country covered by the Convention. Viral
DRM LLC, 2025 WL 3240803, at *1 (“As Mexico has not agreed to service by email,
WhatsApp, or website posting, the Hague Service Convention prohibits these methods of
service unless an exception applies.”); cf. Cadence Design Sys., 734 F. Supp. 3d at 965
(“[T]he Hague Service Convention does not allow service by email unless the receiving
country agrees to it” and denying the request for alternate service by email); Facebook,
480 F. Supp. 3d at 987 (holding same).
Plaintiffs’ arguments in support of why they need service by email or WhatsApp
rely on burden. They do not point to any exception that could apply. Thus, the Court
DENIES the motion for alternative service for Defendant Karla Parra.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 8