## Facts

- An engineering firm sued a closely held corporation and its shareholder-principals for unpaid engineering services under written contracts and common counts.
- The complaint sought $69,347.01 plus interest, attorney fees, and costs, and alleged the individual defendants were alter egos of the corporation.
- A process server made multiple attempts to personally serve two defendants at their residence; substitute service was ultimately made on an adult who came out of the residence, followed by mailing copies to the residence.
- The remaining two defendants lived in a gated community; the process server repeatedly attempted service at their residence but was denied entry by the gate guard.
- The process server left the summons and complaint with the gate guard (who controlled access), then mailed copies to the residence shortly thereafter.
- No defendant appeared, defaults were entered, and the trial court entered a default judgment for the amount demanded.
- Defendants moved to set aside the default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service; the trial court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether substitute service on a gated-community gate guard, followed by mailing, satisfies California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20 for resident defendants whose access is controlled by that guard.
2. Whether the same method can effect substitute service on a closely held corporation using the residence as its address.
3. Whether the service method was reasonably calculated to provide notice and therefore satisfied due process.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the default judgment.
- The court held that, on these facts, leaving process with the gate guard and then mailing copies to the residence constituted valid substitute service under CCP § 415.20.
- Because service was valid, the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants and the corporation, and the default judgment was not void.

## Legal Principles

- Substitute service under CCP § 415.20 is permitted when personal service cannot be accomplished with reasonable diligence, and it requires delivery to a statutorily acceptable recipient at a qualifying address plus follow-up mailing.
- Service statutes are construed liberally to effectuate notice; substantial compliance may suffice where the method used is reasonably calculated to provide actual notice.
- A defendant may not use controlled-access arrangements to frustrate service; when a gate guard functions as the access gatekeeper to the defendant’s residence (and associated address), the guard may qualify as a person “apparently in charge” for substitute service in that setting.
- Due process is satisfied when the service method, viewed in context (including follow-up mailing and evidence suggesting receipt), is reasonably calculated to apprise defendants of the action.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a default judgment after finding that plaintiffs who diligently attempted personal service could validly serve residents (and a related corporation using the same address) by leaving process with the gated-community guard who controlled access and then mailing copies to the residence, thereby establishing personal jurisdiction and meeting due process requirements.


Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Grp., Inc., 6 Cal. App. 4th 1387, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 351 (Ct. App. 1992)