TOPPAN MERRILL LLC VS. PRESTO AUTOMATION INC.

8/27/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 9 of 16

2:00 PM LINE 6 25-CIV-02804 TOPPAN MERRILL LLC VS. PRESTO AUTOMATION INC.

TOPPAN MERRILL LLC CAZ ASHJIAN PRESTO AUTOMATION INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Substitute Serve the Complaint and Summons on the California Secretary of State

TENTATIVE RULING:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Toppan Merrill LLC’s Motion for an Order Permitting Substituted Service of the Summons and Complaint on the California Secretary of State is GRANTED.

Presto Automation Inc. is a foreign corporation. Corporations Code section 2111, subdivision (a), permits the Court to authorize service on the California Secretary of State when the corporation’s designated agent for service of process cannot be found with due diligence at the designated address or the other circumstances specified in the statute are established by affidavit. (Corp. Code, § 2111, subd. (a).) Service made pursuant to section 2111 is deemed complete on the tenth day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State. (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated the requisite due diligence. Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted service at 985 Industrial Road, Suite 205, San Carlos, California, where the process server was informed that Defendant was no longer located. Plaintiff thereafter made four unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendant at 4 West 4th Street, Sixth Floor, San Mateo, California, on May 15, 19, 20, and 21, 2025. Plaintiff also located and attempted service at an address for a corporate officer and subsequently made three unsuccessful attempts at another address located for Defendant’s agent for service of process. (Sposato Decl., ¶¶ 6–7, Exs. D–E.) These efforts establish due diligence within the meaning of Corporations Code section 2111.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff may serve Defendant through the California Secretary of State in the manner prescribed by Corporations Code section 2111, subdivision (a).

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the moving party shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Court directs the parties to San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) regarding the wording of proposed orders.