(a)If an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the agent designated cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personally delivering the process, or if no agent has been designated, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure or upon the corporation in the manner provided in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a) of Section
416.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State’s office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing such service. Service in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.
(b)Upon the receipt of any such copy of process and the fee therefor, the Secretary of State shall give notice of the service of the process to the corporation at its principal office, by forwarding to such office, by registered mail with request for return receipt,
the copy of the process or, if the records of the Secretary of State do not disclose an address for its principal office, by forwarding such copy in the same manner to the last designated agent for service of process who has not resigned. If the agent for service of process has resigned and has not been replaced and the records of the Secretary of State do not disclose an address for its principal office, no action need be taken by the Secretary of State.
(c)The Secretary of State shall keep a record of all process served upon the Secretary of State under this chapter and shall record therein the time of service and the Secretary of State’s action with reference thereto. The certificate of the Secretary of State, under the Secretary of State’s official seal, certifying to the receipt of process, the giving of notice thereof to
the corporation and the forwarding of such process pursuant to this section, shall be competent and prima facie evidence of the matters stated therein.
(d)The court order pursuant to subdivision (a) that service of process be made upon the corporation by delivery to the Secretary of State may be a court order of a court of another state, or of any federal court if the suit, action, or proceeding has been filed in that court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
54
cases (
39 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case:
Gibble v. Car-Lene Rsch., Inc., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7850 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
Gibble v. Car-Lene Rsch., Inc., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7850 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “(Corp. Code, § 1702, subd. (a).) Indeed, a careful reading of Corporations Code section 1702 suggests that a party serving process upon any corporation that has failed to designate an agent for service of process should, and arguably must, first attempt service upon both the…”
Tunis v. Barrow, 184 Cal. App. 3d 1069 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “(Corp. Code, § 1702.) Service on the corporate defendants was made November 7, 1983, by delivering to the secretary of state, on behalf of each defendant, copies of the summons and first amended complaint.”
SUPERVALU Inc. v. Virgin Scent Inc. (D. Minnesota 2022).
· cites it 11× “d/b/a artnaturals through the California Secretary of State pursuant to Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 . Defendant is an active California corporation.”
Pension Benefit Guar. Co. v. Ward Technical Prods., Inc (E.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 7× “6 7 Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 (a). “‘[A]s a condition precedent to the issuance of an order for such 8 substituted service’ a plaintiff’s affidavit must establish that ‘the corporation cannot be served 9 with the exercise of due diligence in any other manner provided by law.”
Scott v. Union Rescue Mission CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “However, Corporations Code section 1702 provides: “If an agent for the purpose of service of process .”
Dakavia Mgmt. Corp. v. Bigelow (E.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 5× “See Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 . 4 Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 states, in relevant part: 5 If an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and has not been 6 replaced or if the agent designated cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for…”
Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 5× “at 3 (quoting 15 Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 (a)). 16 On June 5, 2020, the Court found that Plaintiff had satisfactorily demonstrated the inability 17 to serve Saratoga with “reasonable diligence” as to four of the five statutory sections.”
Optima Direct, LLC v. Yageo Am. Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 5× “” Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 (a). “For a 17 court to issue such an order, it must be ‘shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that 18 process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence’ on the 19 corporation’s agent according to California…”
— Cal. Corporations Code § 1702(a) — 25 cases
Pension Benefit Guar. Co. v. Ward Technical Prods., Inc (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“6 7 Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 (a). “‘[A]s a condition precedent to the issuance of an order for such 8 substituted service’ a plaintiff’s affidavit must establish that ‘the corporation cannot be served 9 with the exercise of due diligence in any other manner provided by law.”
Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020).
“at 3 (quoting 15 Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 (a)). 16 On June 5, 2020, the Court found that Plaintiff had satisfactorily demonstrated the inability 17 to serve Saratoga with “reasonable diligence” as to four of the five statutory sections.”
Optima Direct, LLC v. Yageo Am. Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2021).
“” Cal. Corp. Code § 1702 (a). “For a 17 court to issue such an order, it must be ‘shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that 18 process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence’ on the 19 corporation’s agent according to California…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.