Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Lisa Marie Rossi, an individual et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC
SUBSTANCES CONTROL,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA MARIE ROSSI, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 20-cv-01049-VC (TSH)
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ALLOW ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
METHOD TO SERVE JUDGMENT
DEBTOR THE ORDER TO APPEAR
FOR EXAMINATION
Re: Dkt. No. 112
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) obtained a money judgment
against Defendant Gerald F. Rossi as an individual. ECF Nos. 93, 94. The Court granted DTSC’s
Ex Parte Application for Order of Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor Gerald F.
Rossi. ECF No. 105. Pending before the Court is DTSC’s Motion to Allow Alternative Service
Method to Serve Judgment Debtor the Order to Appear for Examination. ECF No. 112 (“Mot.”).
The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 7-1(b) and VACATES the October 8, 2026, hearing. For the reasons stated below, the Court
DENIES the motion.
II. BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2020, DTSC filed this action against several defendants, including Gerald
F. Rossi (“Rossi”). ECF No. 1. On April 28, 2023, the Court entered judgment against Rossi as
an individual, and against the other defendants, in the amount of $9,506,719.58. ECF Nos. 93, 94;
see ECF No. 101 (Abstract of Judgment). On December 22, 2025, the Court granted DTSC’s Ex
Parte Application for Order of Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor Gerald F. Rossi.
ECF No. 105.
Case 3:20-cv-01049-VC Document 117 Filed 09/28/26 Page 1 of 7

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
On January 9, 2026, the Court ordered Rossi to appear for a judgment debtor examination
on March 12, 2026. ECF No. 106. On February 20, 2026, the Court issued a second order for
Rossi’s appearance, ordering him to appear on June 25, 2026. ECF No. 108. On June 10, 2026,
the Court issued a third order for Rossi’s appearance, ordering him to appear on November 12,
2026. ECF No. 110.
Between February and September 2026, DTSC made thirty-one unsuccessful service
attempts on Rossi. Mot. at 4:15–24 (citing Declaration of Michael Bliss ¶¶ 4–12 (ECF No. 113);
Declaration of Jason Hui ¶¶ 4–10 (ECF No. 114); Declaration of Brendan Hughes ¶ 9 (ECF No.
115)). DTSC attempted personal service on Rossi at three different physical addresses: Rossi’s
residence, the Fat Lady Restaurant owned by Rossi’s family, and the contaminated E-D Coat
property. Id.
On September 3, 2026, DTSC filed the instant Motion to Allow Alternative Service
Method to Serve Judgment Debtor the Order to Appear for Examination. ECF No. 112 (“Mot.”).
DTSC seeks an order permitting alternative service of the third Order to Appear for Judgment
Debtor Examination on Rossi. Id. Rossi has not filed a response.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize federal courts to enforce a money
judgment by writ of execution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). “The procedure on execution—and in
proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution—must accord with the
procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it
applies.” Id. This Court is in California, so it will apply California procedure concerning the
judgment debtor examination order.
Judgment debtor proceedings under California law “permit the judgment creditor to
examine the judgment debtor, or third persons who have property of or are indebted to the
judgment debtor, in order to discover property and apply it toward the satisfaction of the money
judgment.” Imperial Bank v. Pim Elec., Inc., 33 Cal. App. 4th 540, 546–47 (1995). “Debtor
examinations are intended to allow the judgment creditor a wide scope of inquiry concerning
property and business affairs of the judgment debtor, and to leave no stone unturned in the search
Case 3:20-cv-01049-VC Document 117 Filed 09/28/26 Page 2 of 7

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
for assets which might be used to satisfy the judgment.” Rosales v. Roman Cath. Bishop of San
Diego, No. 23-cv-00908-AGS-JLB, 2026 WL 1791932, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2026) (cleaned
up).
The California Code of Civil Procedure provides:
(a) The judgment creditor may apply to the proper court for an order
requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court, or before a
referee appointed by the court, at a time and place specified in the
order, to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money
judgment.
(b) If the judgment creditor has not caused the judgment debtor to be
examined under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court
shall make the order upon ex parte application of the judgment
creditor.
(c) If the judgment creditor has caused the judgment debtor to be
examined under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court
shall make the order if the judgment creditor by affidavit or otherwise
shows good cause for the order. The application shall be made on
noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule so requires.
Otherwise, it may be made ex parte.
(d) The judgment creditor shall personally serve a copy of the order
on the judgment debtor not less than 30 days before the date set for
the examination. Service shall be made in the manner specified in
Section 415.10. Service of the order creates a lien on the personal
property of the judgment debtor for a period of one year from the date
of the order unless extended or sooner terminated by the court.
(e) Except as provided in section 708.111, the order shall contain the
following statement in 14-point boldface type if printed or in capital
letters if typed: ‘NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR. If you fail to
appear at the time and place specified in this order, you may be subject
to arrest and punishment for contempt of court and the court may
make an order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees
incurred by the judgment creditor in this proceeding.’
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.110 (“Section 708.110”). Section 415.10 provides:
A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the
summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of
a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such
delivery.
The date upon which personal delivery is made shall be entered on or
affixed to the face of the copy of the summons at the time of its
delivery. However, service of a summons without such date shall be
valid and effective.
Id. at § 415.10 (“Section 415.10”).
Case 3:20-cv-01049-VC Document 117 Filed 09/28/26 Page 3 of 7

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IV. DISCUSSION
DTSC moves for an order permitting alternative service of the Order to Appear for
Judgment Debtor Examination on Rossi by four methods: (1) certified mail to Rossi at the Fat
Lady Restaurant; (2) certified mail to Rossi at his residence in Alameda; (3) email to Rossi’s
attorney; and (4) email to an email address with which Rossi is associated. Mot. at 2.
Section 708.110 states: “The judgment creditor shall personally serve a copy of the order
on the judgment debtor not less than 30 days before the date set for examination. Service shall be
made in the manner specified in Section 415.10.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.110(d). Section
415.10, which governs service of a summons, states: “A summons may be served by personal
delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served.” Id. at §
415.10. The California Code of Civil Procedure permits alternative service of a summons, stating
in pertinent part:
If no provision is made in this chapter or other law for the service of
summons, or if a plaintiff, despite exercising reasonable diligence, has
been unable to effect service of the summons by any of the methods
authorized under this chapter, the court in which the action is pending
may, upon motion, direct that summons be served in a manner that is
reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served,
including by electronic mail or other electronic technology, and that
proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court.
Id. at § 413.30(a)(1) (“Section 413.30”).
Here, DTSC argues that Section 413.30’s alternative service provision that applies to
service of a summons also permits alternative service of judgment debtor examination orders.
Mot. at 6:2–8:14. DTSC acknowledges that several courts have held that Section 708.110 requires
that a judgment debtor be served personally with an examination order. Id. at 8:1–12; see, e.g., In
re Dixie Farms Mkt., 9 F. App’x 692, 693 (9th Cir. 2001) (“This order was in error to the extent
that it allowed mail service because section 708.110 specifically provides that service of the notice
shall be by personal delivery.”); DiscoverOrg Data, LLC v. BitNine Glob., Inc., No. 19-cv-08098-
EJD(NC), 2022 WL 17371159, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2022) (“There is no authority permitting
substitute service of a Rule 69 order under California law.”); H&M Bay, Inc. v. W. Coast
Transportation, LLC, No. CV-16-01744-VAP(DTBx), 2017 WL 8180634, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
Case 3:20-cv-01049-VC Document 117 Filed 09/28/26 Page 4 of 7

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
13, 2017) (“[Section 708.110] does not provide for alternative methods of service other than
personal service.”). However, DTSC argues that these decisions came down prior to Section
413.30’s amendment in 2025 which makes clear that alternative service methods may also be used
for service of judgment debtor examination orders. Mot. at 3:14–21, 8:1–3.
When interpreting California statutes, courts “begin with the plain, commonsense meaning
of the language used by the Legislature. If the language is unambiguous, the plain meaning
controls.” Riverside Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t v. Stiglitz, 60 Cal. 4th 624, 630 (2014) (cleaned up).
Section 708.110 is clear—it expressly states the creditor “shall personally serve” the debtor with
the examination order and does not provide for any exceptions to personal service. Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 708.110(d). Section 708.110’s relationship to Section 415.10 (referred to in Section
708.110) confirms that personal service is required. See id. at § 415.10 (explaining manner of
personal service is by “personal delivery of a copy of the [examination order] to the person to be
served”); see also Winn v. Pioneer Med. Grp., Inc., 63 Cal. 4th 148, 155–56 (2016) (“We consider
the ordinary meaning of the statutory language, its relationship to the text of related provisions,
terms used elsewhere in the statute, and the overarching structure of the statutory scheme.”).
Indeed, “one of the more authoritative treatises on California law explicitly counsels that
‘substituted service is not permitted’ for judgment debtor examination orders.” New High Ltd. v.
Glob. Merch Grp., LLC, No. CV-21-9608-CAS(PVCx), 2026 WL 852165, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
23, 2026) (citing 1 MB Practice Guide: CA Debt Collection 10.30 (2026)).
DTSC points to no legal authority—binding or otherwise—stating that Section 708.110
permits service by alternatives to personal service. Instead, DTSC argues that Section 413.30’s
legislative history, along with statutory interpretation doctrines, make it clear that alternative
service of judgment debtor examination orders is permissible. Mot. at 3:14–21. California courts
only take account of legislative history if a statute’s text is ambiguous. Winn, 63 Cal. 4th at 156.
But DTSC does not argue that Section 708.110 is ambiguous; thus, any legislative history is
immaterial. Even so, the legislative history is not helpful to DTSC because it concerns Section
413.30 (which only applies to service of a summons) and states that the amendment to Section
413.30 specifically addresses problems with service of process. See Cal. S.B. 85, 2025–26 Reg.
Case 3:20-cv-01049-VC Document 117 Filed 09/28/26 Page 5 of 7

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Sess., S. Floor Analysis, at 4 (Aug. 15, 2025) (explaining amendment provides flexibility where “a
plaintiff, despite exercising reasonable diligence, is unable to effect service of the summons by
any method authorized by statute”). And in fact, the legislative history of Section 708.110
confirms that examination orders must be personally served on judgment debtors. When
amending other statutory provisions concerning enforcement of judgments, the California
Legislature declined to permit alternative service of judgment debtor examination orders and
updated Section 708.110 to specify service must be via personal delivery. See Cal. A.B. 504,
1993–94 Reg. Sess., S. Comm. Analysis (June 22, 1993) (“This bill repeals the existing provisions
that require personal service of writs, notices, and orders relating to the enforcement of judgments.
This bill allows these papers to be served by any method allowed by summons. However, there is
one exception, orders of examination on judgment debtors must be served via personal service.”);
Cal. A.B. 504, 1993–94 Reg. Sess., S. Floor Analysis (Aug. 6, 1993) (“Existing law provides that
a judgment creditor shall personally serve a copy of an order requiring a judgment debtor to
appear before the court to furnish information to aid in the enforcement of the money judgment.
This bill would provide that the order must be served by personal delivery.”).
DTSC’s argument that the “liberal construction rule also supports extending Section
413.30’s reach beyond the service of summons, to actions requiring service after a lawsuit has
begun,” is unpersuasive. Mot. at 7:11–28. The lone case cited for this proposition is inapposite—
there, the California Supreme Court held that it was desirable to apply the “liberal construction
rule” to California’s new “ jurisdiction and service of process statutes” and dealt only with
“section 416.10, which governs service upon corporations.” Pasadena Medi-Ctr. Assocs. v.
Superior Ct., 9 Cal. 3d 773, 778 (1973). Critically, while DTSC lumps service of a summons and
service of a judgment debtor examination order into “actions requiring service,” it does not
address how the failure to respond to service differs drastically between the two actions. A
judgment debtor who fails to respond to an examination order faces possible “arrest and
punishment for contempt of court.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.110(e). The Court’s Order to
Appear for Judgment Debtor Examination states as much. See ECF No. 110 (“If you fail to appear
at the time and place specified in this order, you may be subject to arrest and punishment for
Case 3:20-cv-01049-VC Document 117 Filed 09/28/26 Page 6 of 7

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
contempt of court[.]”). In addition, the mere service of the examination order “on the judgment
debtor creates an enforceable lien on the debtor’s personal property.” In re Swintek, 543 B.R. 303,
307 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015) (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.110(d)). In contrast, none of these
consequences arise from the failure to respond to a summons. Therefore, given the harsh penalties
for failing to respond to an examination order, the Court concludes that the alternative service
provisions in Section 413.30 should not be imputed to Section 708.110. Cf. Clark v. United Debt
Settlement, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-01298-SSS(DTBx), 2026 WL 638634, at *3–4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4,
2026) (holding plaintiff failed to provide judgment debtor proper notice of examination because
plaintiff did not personally serve debtor with examination order and declining to hold debtor in
contempt for failing to appear at examination “[g]iven the severity of civil contempt”).
In sum, because the statute’s text explicitly states that an examination order must be served
personally on a judgment debtor, the Court declines to be the first to read into California law an
exception to personal service that is contradicted by the plain terms of the statute. See id. at *3
(“Courts in this Circuit have consistently upheld the personal service requirements for judgment
debtor examinations under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 708.110(d).”). Accordingly, the Court
DENIES DTSC’s request for an order permitting alternative service of the Order to Appear for
Judgment Debtor Examination on Rossi by certified mail and by email.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES DTSC’s Motion to Allow Alternative
Service Method to Serve Judgment Debtor the Order to Appear for Examination.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:20-cv-01049-VC Document 117 Filed 09/28/26 Page 7 of 7