SB 85 updates California’s service-of-summons law to give courts a clearer statutory basis for ordering alternative methods of service when a plaintiff has been unable to complete service using the statutorily authorized options. The bill reflects courts’ growing reliance on digital channels and raises the bar for plaintiffs seeking court-approved non‑statutory service by requiring a factual showing of the attempts already made.
For practitioners, SB 85 matters because it reshapes how litigants approach hard‑to‑serve defendants: it creates a predictable route to seek court permission for nontraditional service, but it also imposes a detailed pleading burden and leaves courts with discretion over what proof of service will suffice.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 85 amends CCP §413.30 to let a court, on motion, direct that summons be served by means reasonably calculated to give actual notice when no statutory method applies or when a plaintiff, despite exercising reasonable diligence, has been unable to effect service using the statute’s methods. The statute expressly allows electronic mail and other electronic technologies and authorizes the court to prescribe the form of proof of service.
Who It Affects
Civil litigants and their counsel, process‑service vendors and providers of electronic service technology, and trial courts that adjudicate service disputes. Defendants who primarily use digital communications may be easier to reach; public entities remain excluded from the new rule.
Why It Matters
The amendment provides a clearer statutory hook for electronic and other nontraditional service, shifts tactical emphasis onto plaintiffs to document attempts, and gives courts formal authority to fashion tailored proof requirements — a practical modernization with consequences for due process, costs, and litigation strategy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 85 revises California’s Code of Civil Procedure §413.30 to bridge a gap between existing service rules and the realities of locating defendants who are increasingly reachable by digital means. Under the amended text, a court may order service in any manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice when either the relevant statutes supply no method for service or when a plaintiff, despite having exercised reasonable diligence, cannot effectuate service using the methods statutorily authorized.
The statute explicitly mentions electronic mail and other electronic technologies as permissible channels for court‑directed service.
The bill makes two linked changes to how courts evaluate requests for alternative service. First, it requires plaintiffs to move the court for an order and to support that motion with a detailed factual statement of all previous attempts to serve the defendant by each statutorily authorized method.
Second, the plaintiff must explain why each attempt failed at every address or location where the defendant is likely to be found. Those factual requirements are intended to prevent shortcut service orders and to give the court a record tailored to deciding whether an alternative method is likely to provide actual notice.When a court grants an order for alternative service, SB 85 gives the court discretion to specify how proof of that service must be made.
That could include requirements such as return receipts, server logs, affidavits of transmission, or other technical evidence depending on the electronic medium used. The statute preserves the existing constitutional touchstone — service must be reasonably calculated to provide actual notice — but delegates the mechanics of proof to the trial court’s judgment in each case.The statute also draws a clear line: it does not apply to actions against governmental entities or against their agents or employees (whether sued in an official or individual capacity).
That exclusion leaves intact existing, often more formal, rules for serving public bodies and their representatives, but it also creates a practical distinction litigants must track when deciding whether to pursue an alternative service order.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends CCP §413.30 to permit a court, upon motion, to order service ‘by electronic mail or other electronic technology’ when statutory methods fail or no statutory method exists.
A plaintiff seeking court‑ordered alternative service must file facts detailing every attempt to serve the defendant by each statutorily authorized method and explain why each attempt failed at each address or likely location.
The court retains discretion to require that proof of service be made in the form the court prescribes (e.g.
transmission logs, delivery receipts, or sworn declarations).
The alternative‑service authorization applies only when the plaintiff has exercised ‘reasonable diligence’ to use the statutory methods but was unable to effect service.
The section explicitly does not apply to actions against governmental entities or their agents or employees sued in an official or individual capacity.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Court may order alternative service when statute provides no method or authorized methods fail
This subsection authorizes the court, on motion, to direct service ‘‘in a manner that is reasonably calculated to give actual notice’’ whenever no provision for service exists in the chapter or other law, or when a plaintiff who has exercised reasonable diligence cannot complete service by the chapter’s authorized methods. Practically, this gives courts a statutory basis to approve novel or customized service plans rather than relying solely on common‑law authority. The text specifically mentions electronic mail and other electronic technology, signaling legislative comfort with digital channels as potential means of notice.
Plaintiff must plead detailed facts showing reasonable diligence and failed attempts
This subsection imposes a procedural and evidentiary requirement on plaintiffs: motions for alternative service must enumerate every attempt to serve the defendant by each statutorily prescribed method and explain why each effort failed at every place the defendant is likely to be found. That transforms the motion from an affidavit of convenience into a fact‑specific evidentiary showing, and it directs courts to evaluate alternative‑service requests on the basis of a granular record rather than general assertions.
Exclusion for governmental entities and their agents or employees
This subsection preserves distinct service rules for government defendants by excluding actions against governmental entities and their agents or employees from the alternative‑service provision. Litigants cannot rely on the new electronic or creative service authority when suing public bodies; they must follow the existing, often more formal, statutory modes of serving government defendants.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Plaintiffs and plaintiff counsel pursuing claims against hard‑to‑locate defendants — the statute lowers a procedural barrier to obtaining notice when traditional service repeatedly fails, allowing cases to proceed when otherwise default judgments or dismissals might be the only options.
- Litigants who primarily communicate electronically (remote individuals, gig‑economy workers, or businesses that transact by email) — they may be easier to reach through court‑ordered digital service, shortening delay and lowering the cost to complete service.
- Technology providers and vendors that offer authenticated electronic‑service platforms — courts may call for transmission logs, delivery receipts, or other technical proofs that these vendors can supply, creating demand for reliable, court‑grade evidence of electronic delivery.
Who Bears the Cost
- Plaintiffs and their counsel — the bill raises the documentary burden on plaintiffs by requiring a detailed factual account of all prior service attempts, increasing litigation preparation time and potential costs for investigative work.
- Trial courts and clerks — judges must evaluate often technical proofs about digital transmission and make case‑by‑case determinations about what proof suffices, adding adjudicative and administrative workload.
- Defendants who receive alternative electronic service — although they gain notice, defendants may face earlier exposure to litigation where they had previously avoided service, and they may need to challenge the sufficiency or authenticity of electronic proof.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between improving access to adjudication by allowing modern, practical channels to deliver notice and the need to safeguard defendants’ constitutional due‑process protections: permitting easier, electronic service helps plaintiffs proceed against elusive defendants but risks substituting convenience for reliable, verifiable notice unless courts impose robust, technically informed proof requirements.
SB 85 modernizes service doctrine but leaves several open implementation questions. First, the statute does not define what constitutes ‘‘other electronic technology,’’ nor does it set minimum standards for authentication, encryption, or retention of delivery records; courts will develop those standards piecemeal, producing potential inconsistency across jurisdictions.
Second, the requirement that plaintiffs detail why each statutory method failed ‘‘at every address or location where the defendant is likely to be found’’ is factually demanding and may create disputes over scope: how far must counsel go in searching databases, social media, corporate filings, or location data before the court accepts reasonable diligence? That inquiry could increase discovery fights and evidentiary hearings at the outset of cases.
Third, the statute’s delegation to courts to prescribe proof of service shifts responsibility from the legislature to trial judges to weigh technical evidence (server logs, SMTP headers, device receipts). Judges lacking technological expertise may struggle with authentication issues, which could lead to inconsistent rulings or increased use of expert witnesses.
Finally, excluding governmental defendants eliminates a convenient route to digital service in those cases, but it also invites tactical behavior: plaintiffs might structure claims or parties to avoid the exclusion or face additional disputes about whether a particular defendant qualifies as a governmental agent.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.