“Patience And Tenacity Of Purpose Are Worth More Than Twice Their Weight Of Cleverness.” Thomas Huxley.

A complaint alleging defendant misappropriated a company’s assets was personally served on defendant at a North Carolina airport when he visited the U.S.A. while living and working in Europe. Defendant did not respond to the complaint. Plaintiff later amended the complaint, increasing the prayer for damages and reclassifying the matter from a limited to an unlimited civil case. Thereafter, plaintiff mailed the amended complaint to defendant at what was thought to be his home address in the Netherlands. Defendant did not respond to the amended complaint either. After a default was entered, defendant moved to set it aside under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d), and the trial court granted the motion. Undeterred, plaintiff located an address in Los Angeles, which was associated with defendant and sent the summons and complaint there by certified mail, but it was returned with a note from the U.S. Post Office: “Return to Sender-unclaimed.” Further investigation revealed defendant was, indeed, living at that Los Angeles address, so plaintiff hired a process server to effectuate service at that address. But no one ever answered the door. Plaintiff filed an application for publication of service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50, which the trial court granted. Courtesy copies were mailed to the lawyer who represented defendant at the section 473 hearing. Once again a default was taken and once again a noticed motion to set it aside was heard. The trial court noted the absence of any evidence from defendant explaining why the U.S. Post Office is of the opinion defendant still receives his mail at the Los Angeles address, and denied defendant’s motion. Default judgment in the amount of $254,687.11 was entered. In affirming, the appellate court stated: “Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that [defendant] could not with reasonable diligence be  or by mail.” (Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group, LLC (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 5; November 6, 2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 241 [179 Cal.Rptr.3d 465].)