John Doe 1 (Harry Blevins) et al vs Roy Eugene Stephenson, Jr

Case Number

23CV05242

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 11/14/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion for Order Permitting Service by Email

Tentative Ruling

For all the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Background:

This action involves an alleged altercation between defendant Roy Eugene Stephenson, Jr. (Stephenson), a self-represented party, and three teenagers (two of whom are minors) represented by counsel. (FAC; Answer.) Plaintiffs allege on September 4, 2023, defendant Stephenson pointed a gun at plaintiff John Doe 3’s head, fired and missed, negligently causing injuries to plaintiffs. (FAC, ¶¶ 1-4, 9-12, 15-20.) Stephenson alleges that he is 82 years old, has physical disabilities and that plaintiffs were taunting him while illegally drinking alcohol and trespassing on his property. Defendant alleges that his weapon was discharged into a nearby creek bank in self-defense but not at John Doe 3’s head. (Answer, pp. 12-13.)

Plaintiffs filed this case on November 28, 2023. (Complaint). On March 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed a proof of service indicating defendant was personally served with the complaint and case-related documentation on February 29, 2024 at 1100 Anacapa Street, Dept. 1, Santa Barbara, CA 93121 (the court notes that this zip code appears to be a typo in the proof).

An affidavit of unsuccessful service was filed on May 23, 2024, indicating that multiple attempts were made to personally serve defendant with case-related documents at a residence located at 268 Canon Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93105. A proof of service was subsequently filed on July 23, 2024, indicating that personal service on defendant of these documents was accomplished on July 17, 2024 at 1100 Anacapa Street, Dept. 1, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.

On November 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed a proof of service indicating that a request for entry of default and related documents were personally served on defendant on October 23, 2024 at 1100 Anacapa Street, Dept. 1, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.

On January 8, 2025, plaintiffs filed a proof of service indicating that defendant was personally served with a request for judgment and related documents that same day at 1100 Anacapa Street, Dept. 1, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.

On February 27, 2025, plaintiffs filed a proof of service indicating that defendant was personally served with a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and case-related documents on February 26, 2025 at 1100 Anacapa Street, Dept. 1, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.

On, April 30, 2025, plaintiffs filed a proof of service indicating that defendant was personally served with a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and case related documents that same day at 1100 Anacapa Street, Dept. 1, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.

On June 2, 2025, defendant Stephenson filed an answer to the first amended complaint. (Answer.) Defendant’s answer indicates he is self-represented in this matter. (Ibid.) There is no email address stated on this filing. (Ibid.) The answer indicates as follows pertaining to defendant’s contact information:

Roy Eugene Stephenson, Jr.

P.O. Box 30885

Santa Barbara, CA 93130

Phone 805 687-21170 (sic)

Defendant In Pro Per

(Answer.)

On June 27, 2025, plaintiffs filed a proof of electronic service indicating that defendant was served with a case management statement by mail on June 26, 2025 at 268 Canon Dr., Santa Barbara, CA 93105 and P.O. Box 30885, Santa Barbara, CA 93130, and by email at restephsb@hotmail.com.

On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs filed a proof of service indicating that this motion for order permitting substituted service by email and case-related documents were personally served on defendant on July 16, 2025 at 118 E Figueroa St., Santa Barbara, CA 93101.

Analysis:

In this motion, plaintiff Harry Blevins (Blevins) moves the court for an order permitting substituted service upon defendant Stephenson by email. Plaintiff Blevins argues that the court has discretion to order alternative service methods pursuant to Rules of Court, rule 2.251 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6. No specific language from these statues is quoted by the moving papers in support of the relief sought by plaintiff Blevins. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff Blevins argues that plaintiffs are having difficulties serving documents on defendant Stephenson in this case and are incurring unreasonable service costs. Approximately ten attempts to serve defendant were made by Commercial Process Serving, Inc. (Bourhis Decl., ¶ 6). Approximately five attempts to serve defendant were made by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department. (Bourhis Decl., ¶ 7). Sheriff’s authorized agent, Bill Brown, executed a declaration filed with the court on May 23, 2024, indicating defendant Stephenson had evaded service. (Bourhis Decl., ¶ 7 [the court notes that this exhibit was not attached to the Bourhis declaration filed in support of this motion but upon review of the court’s docket, the document was located].)

Plaintiffs argue service was attempted by mail at defendant’s known residential address at 268 Canon Drive, Santa Barbara, CA, which returned as undeliverable. (Bourhis Decl. ¶ 8). Plaintiffs attempted service by mail to defendant’s post office box at P.O. Box 30885, Santa Barbara, CA 93130, which also returned as undeliverable. (Bourhis Decl. ¶ 9). Plaintiffs have only been able to reliably serve Defendant via personal service at scheduled court hearings pertaining to a different court proceeding. (Bourhis Decl. ¶ 10). To date, plaintiffs have incurred $2,366.15 in expenses for attempts to serve defendant. (Bourhis Decl. ¶ 12).

Plaintiff obtained Defendant’s email address – restephsb@hotmail.com – via Google.com and Trellis.com. (Bourhis Decl. ¶ 11). Plaintiff requests an order permitting substituted service upon defendant Stephenson by email to restephsb@hotmail.com and requests that such service be deemed complete upon transmission. Plaintiff argues without such an order, he will face continued delays and expenses in attempting service of future pleadings, discovery, and other case documents. This motion is unopposed. (Not. Non Opp.)

Defendant Stephenson is a self-represented party. (Answer.) Self-represented parties must be served by non-electronic methods unless they consent to electronic service. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B) [“self-represented parties or other self-represented persons … are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service”].) Self-represented parties may consent to receive electronic service by serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court, or manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(1)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b).) The mere act of electronic filing, by itself, is not express consent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(3)(ii).) An unrepresented person may withdraw consent at any time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(4).).

The court has reviewed the docket and found no indication that defendant Stephenson consented to electronic service in this case. The court has not located any filing by defendant containing an email address at which he can be contacted or served. The answer to the first amended complaint filed by defendant does not reference an email address for defendant. (Answer.)

Plaintiff did not establish that defendant Stephenson uses the email address located and proposed by plaintiff. (Bourhis Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff Blevins has not referenced any statutory language in his moving papers that permits the court to order electronic service on defendant Stephenson as an unrepresented party without his consent under these circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(1)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b).). Plaintiff Blevins did not cite any evidence that defendant consented to electronic service at the email address located by plaintiff, either by notice or manifested consent through electronic means with the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(1)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b).) Plaintiff Blevins did not make a sufficient legal or factual showing to demonstrate he is entitled to the relief sought in this motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).)

For all the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion is denied.