Gimenez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Gaston Procopio GIMENEZ, individually Case No.: 23-cv-0671-AGS-VET and on behalf of all others similarly 5 situated, ORDER GRANTING REMAND MOTION (ECF 4) AND CLOSING Plaintiff,

CASE

7 v.

GUNNAR OPTIKS, LLC,

9 Defendant. 10 Plaintiff’s remand motion turns on one question: Under California law, is substitute service on a company valid, even when plaintiffs have not made reasonably diligent attempts to serve the company personally? The answer is yes. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gaston Gimenez sued defendant Gunnar Optiks, LLC, in California state court. On February 28, 2023, plaintiff’s process server tried to personally serve defendant’s designated agent at his office. (ECF 4-1, at 2.) Because the agent was “unavailable,” the server instead undertook substitute service by “hand[ing] the documents to” the agent’s employee and “mail[ing] a copy” of the summons and complaint to Gunnar Optiks that same day. (Id.) No one disputes…