California Litigators Must Get Ready for Process Serving Revamp

Assembly Bill 747, known as the Service of Process Accountability, Reform and Equity Act, or SPARE Act, brings the biggest changes to California process serving in decades. Starting Jan. 1, 2027, it replaces the old court-based standard for “reasonable diligence” with clear, trackable rules. I worked closely with legislators and other stakeholders on the wording of AB 747 as it moved through the Assembly and Senate.

The bill’s sponsors said the act is needed to protect defendants’ due process rights and make sure they get proper notice of legal claims. They argued that fraud can lead to judgments without a defendant’s knowledge or consent, which is a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” and blocks access to the civil justice system. The law aims to increase accountability and transparency by setting clear diligence rules and requiring digital evidence.

Litigators should remember that a judgment void for improper service can be challenged at any time after it is entered, and audit their process serving vendors now. They should confirm each vendor can produce GPS-stamped photographic proofs of service, document 3-3-3 attempt logs, and deliver proofs in a format that survives a motion challenging the service. Attorneys also should update the intake checklists so paralegals can verify compliance before filing. This is crucial because defects introduced in 2027 may not surface for years.

The 3-3-3 Rule

The SPARE Act sets a clear minimum for reasonable diligence: Process servers must try three times, on three different days, and at three different times of day before substituted service is allowed. This new rule replaces the old, more subjective approach with a clear and measurable standard.

In consumer debt and residential eviction cases, at least one attempt must be made at the defendant’s home or usual place of residence, if that address is known or can be found with reasonable effort. If the 3-3-3 standard isn’t met, substituted service will likely be invalid.

GPS-Stamped Photographic Evidence

Every proof of service—personal, substituted, or posting—must now include at least one photo of the service location. Each photo needs to show the date, time, and GPS coordinates. The photo should capture the door of the home or office. If the door can’t be reached, the process server should photograph the entry point and explain why in writing on the proof of service. The new proof-of-service form, which is now open for public comment by the California Judicial Council, will require this photo and GPS evidence.

There are a few exceptions. If taking a photo would put the server’s safety at risk, or if there is no cellular or GPS signal, the server must explain these details in the documentation. In all other cases, the proof of service and its attachments will create a digital record showing the date, time, location, and visual evidence of each attempt.

Litigation Strategy Impact

Three consequences deserve particular attention.

First, the burden of proof changes. If a defendant asks to set aside a judgment and provides sworn evidence that they weren’t served, the plaintiff now must prove that service was done correctly, using a preponderance of the evidence. The SPARE Act makes this rule standard and ends inconsistent practices in different courts.

Second, there is no time limit for challenging void judgments. If a default judgment is void because of improper service, it can be challenged at any time. Judgments entered in 2027 or later are at risk if the proof of service doesn’t include the required GPS-stamped photos or fails to meet the 3-3-3 rule.

Third, in unlawful detainer (eviction) cases, the complaint must now include the date, time, and place where the termination notice was served.

Outlook

The 2027 start date gives you time to prepare, but it’s important to act now. Review your current service providers, ensure they use GPS metadata, and verify that their documentation meets the 3-3-3 rule. Remember that if your proofs of service don’t comply with the SPARE Act, opposing counsel will have a strong reason to challenge the service and any resulting judgments.

Practical preparation falls into four buckets. First, vendor due diligence: Ask current process serving partners to demonstrate, on a sample file, how they capture GPS-stamped photographs, store the underlying metadata, and produce it on demand.

Second, template updates: Revise unlawful detainer complaint templates so each filing specifically identifies the notice or notices of termination on which the action is based and attaches a proof of service for each such notice.

Third, intake protocols: Require paralegals to confirm 3-3-3 compliance before any proof of service is filed.

Fourth, training: Brief litigation teams on the shift in burden of proof so they know how to preserve service records.

I believe the industry needs clear, enforceable standards. My team and I at Steno supported the SPARE Act because we value the accountability and transparency it brings.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Jeff Karotkin is Steno’s senior director of court filing and service of process.

Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines, and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.