Maria Del Rosario Hernandez Parra v. Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District, et al

Case Number

25CV02211

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/05/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Defendant and Cross-Complainant Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District for Order for Publication of Summons on Cross-Complaint Against Armando Cervantes

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Hernandez Parra: Christopher B. Adamson, Alan A. Ahdoot, Adamson Ahdoot LLP.

                            

For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District: Trevor D. Large, Victoria C. Diffenderfer, Fauver Large Archibald & Spray.

For Defendants City of Goleta and City of Carpinteria: Lisa N. Shyer, Procter Shyer & Winter LLP.

For Defendant Aleksandrs Konstantinovics: No appearance.

For Cross-Defendant Armando Cervantes: No appearance.

                       

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of Defendant and Cross-complainant Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District for order for publication of summons on Cross-complaint against Armando Cervantes is granted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District

Background

This action commenced on April 10, 2025, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Hernandez Parra (Plaintiff) against Defendants Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD), City of Santa Barbara (City of SB), City of Goleta (Goleta), City of Carpinteria (Carpinteria), County of Santa Barbara (County of SB), and Aleksandrs Konstantinovics (Konstantinovics) for negligence.

As alleged in the complaint: On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff was a passenger on a Gillig Bus (the “bus”) that was owned by “Defendants” and operated by Konstantinovics, who caused the bus to collide with another vehicle. (Compl., ¶¶ 15-17.) The subject incident occurred on Steck Circle near Lagoon Road in Santa Barbara. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

City of SB and County of SB have subsequently been dismissed from this action.

On August 5, 2025, MTD answered the complaint with a general denial and 19 affirmative defenses.

On August 12, 2025, MTD filed a cross-complaint (CC) against Cross-Defendant Armando Cervantes (Cervantes) for negligence, equitable indemnity, and contribution. MTD alleges that Cervantes was the driver of a 2020 Honda Civic that was involved in the subject collision, and that Cervantes caused the collision.

Following several unsuccessful attempts to serve Cervantes, MTD now moves for an order for publication of the summons on the CC.

No party has filed opposition or any other response to the motion.

Analysis

“(a) A summons may be served 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 and that either:

“(1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.

“(2) The party to be served has or claims an interest in real or personal property in this state that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, or the relief demanded in the action consists wholly or in part in excluding the party from any interest in the property.

“(b) The Court shall order the summons to be published in a named newspaper, published in this state, that is most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served. If the party to be served resides or is located out of this state, the Court may also order the summons to be published in a named newspaper outside this state that is most likely to give actual notice to that party. The order shall direct that a copy of the summons, the complaint, and the order for publication be forthwith mailed to the party if his or her address is ascertained before expiration of the time prescribed for publication of the summons. Except as otherwise provided by statute, the publication shall be made as provided by Section 6064 of the Government Code unless the Court, in its discretion, orders publication for a longer period.

“(c) Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete as provided in Section 6064 of the Government Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, subds. (a)-(c).)

“Under California law, “ ‘[c]onsistent with the notions of fair play and due process, substituted service by publication is ‘ “a last resort” ’ when ‘ “reasonable diligence to locate a person in order to give him notice before resorting to the fictional notice afforded by publication” ’ has been exercised.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘Personal service remains the method of choice under the statutes and the constitution,’ ” and “ ‘[w]hen substituted or constructive service is attempted, strict compliance with the letter and spirit of the statutes is required.’ ” [Citations.]” (Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye (S.D. Cal. 2020) 337 F.R.D. 293, 299.)

MTD attempted service on Cervantes by the following means:

By personal service, at the address listed on his California driver’s license, on August 16, 2025, August 18, 2025, and on multiple dates between August 23, 2025 and September 5, 2025. (Diffenderfer Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5 & Exhs. A, C.)

MTD ordered a skip-trace report to verify current location information. (Diffenderfer Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)

MTD emailed copies of the summons and CC, together with Notices and Acknowledgment of Receipt, to two separate email addresses, potentially belonging to Cervantes, that were located through an internet search. (Diffenderfer Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. D.)

MTD sent Cervantes, via certified mail, a copy of the summons and CC, together with a Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt, to Cervantes at the address listed on his California driver’s license and also included in the skip-trace report. (Diffenderfer Decl., ¶ 7 & Exh. E.)

Despite the above service attempts, MTD has been unable to locate and personally serve Cervantes. (Diffenderfer Decl., ¶ 8.)

MTD proposes that the summons be published in the Santa Barbara Independent, which is a newspaper of general circulation published in Santa Barbara County, which is the county of Cervantes’ last known address and, according to the skip-trace, has been Cervantes’ county of residence for over 25 years. (Diffenderfer Decl., ¶ 9.)

MTD has proven to the satisfaction of the Court that Cervantes cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner, that Cervantes is a proper party to this action, and that service by publication is the method most likely to give actual notice to Cervantes. The motion will be granted.

“Whenever any law provides that publication of notice shall be made pursuant to a designated section of this article, such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation for the period prescribed, the number of times, and in the manner provided in that section. As used in this article, “ ‘notice’ ” includes official advertising, resolutions, orders, or other matter of any nature whatsoever that are required by law to be published in a newspaper of general circulation.” (Gov. Code, § 6060.)

“Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for four successive weeks. Four publications in a newspaper regularly published once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. The period of notice commences with the first day of publication and terminates at the end of the twenty-eighth day, including therein the first day.” (Gov. Code, § 6064.)

The proposed order submitted by MTD contains the terms mandated by the Government Code and the Court intends on signing the proposed order as the order of the Court.