Macias

I. BACKGROUND

1 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that architectural barriers exist at the Restaurant that violate 2 Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and several California statutes. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 9-13. 3 According to Plaintiff, Defendants Fasail and Chau were served with the summons and 4 complaint at 3:26 p.m. on February 13, 2019. Dkt. 13-1 at 2-3. The proof of service submitted by 5 Plaintiff states that service of Defendants Fasail and Chau was made by leaving the summons, 6 complaint, and associated paperwork with Gloria Reyes, the “Person in Charge Of Office,” at 7 Burrito Express, located at 2435 Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, California, and by subsequently 8 mailing the documents to Defendants Fasail and Chau at that address. Dkt. 13-3. The process 9 server’s “Declaration of Diligence” indicates that he effected substitute service on Ms. Reyes after 10 being unable to personally serve Defendants Fasail and Chau on the same date and time – in other 11 words, the process server tried only once to serve those Defendants personally before effecting 12 substitute service. Id. Plaintiff provides no evidence tying Defendants Fasail and Chau to the 13 Burrito Express location in…