Starting January 1, 2026, California will allow service of process by email — a long‑awaited modernization. Yet the statute’s language is so flawed that it is likely useless.

SB 85, sponsored by Senator Tom Umberg’s office, revised Code of Civil Procedure section 413.30 to provide, in pertinent part:

There are several problems with the way the revisions were drafted.

Publication Not Excluded

The statute was meant to provide an alternative to service by publication. But the language requires plaintiffs to attempt every method authorized under Chapter 4 — and that includes publication. How does one attempt, but be unable, to serve by publication? It is quite the conundrum.

• • • If the plaintiff does not apply for publication, they have not attempted it.
    • If the plaintiff applies and the court grants it, service is deemed complete by publication.
    • The only remaining possibility is for the court to deny the application. A complete waste of time for everyone, and clearly unintended.

3. Impossible Motion Requirement

The statute requires a motion. Motions require notice. How can notice be given to a defendant who cannot be served? This is a procedural impossibility. Applications for publication have never required a noticed motion; email service should not either.

Silence on When Service is Complete

Every method of service in Article 3 specifies when service is deemed complete. There is no mention of the effective date of service by electronic means. Should two court days be added, as elsewhere in the Code? The statute doesn’t say.

1. • • How is the defendant’s deadline to respond to the complaint calculated when it is based on the effective date of service?
     • How do we determine the date plaintiff may commence discovery when it is based on the effective date of service?

    

2. Failure to Integrate Into Article 3

2. 2. There should have been a new section added to Article 3 for service by electronic means. Not only would the drafters have likely declared when service is deemed complete, but other unintended consequences would have been avoided:
      • • Service outside California (§ 415.40): Allows service by any method “authorized under this article.” Email is not included.
        • Service by publication (§ 415.50): Publication is permitted upon a showing that service cannot be effected “in another manner specified in this article.” Because email is not in “this article,” publication could be permitted even when a defendant’s email address is known and is far more likely to provide actual notice.

   Legislative Fix In Progress

   1. After the bill was passed by both houses and had been sent to the Governor for signature (i.e., too late to change), I became aware of the bill and advised Senator Umberg’s office of the problems. Legislative Counsel ultimately consulted me in drafting a corrective bill. The draft bill is expected in the next legislative session and would resolve these issues by:
      • Excluding publication from §  413.30(a)(1) and (a)(2).
      • Removing the motion requirement.
      • Adding § 415.60 to describe how email service may be accomplished and deeming it effective two court days after the email is sent.

      The bill will become operative January 1, 2027, at the earliest.
      

   Conclusion

   California’s move toward email service is long overdue. But until corrected, the statute risks creating more confusion than modernization. Practitioners should anticipate interim uncertainty and courts will be forced to improvise.

    

   Julie A. Goren, Esq. is the author and publisher of Litigation By The Numbers, a California-specific procedural manual updated every January and July.