Floyd

Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 5, 20203:20-cv-01520California2,410 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

12 LOUIS FLOYD, Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK

13 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART WITHOUT

14 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

15 SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Louis Floyd filed this putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone 19 Consumer Protection Act against Defendants Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc. (“Saratoga”) and its Chief 20 Executive Officer Thomas Pallone. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion 21 for alternative service upon Saratoga and Pallone. ECF No. 15 (“Mot.”). For the reasons 22 discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES without prejudice in part Plaintiff’s 23 motion for alternative service. 24 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff is a resident of California. Compl. ¶ 1. Defendant Saratoga is a California 26 corporation with its principal place of business in Saratoga,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.