Opinion
CV-24-00288-TUC-JGZ
08-01-2024
DISH Network LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Moses Anthony Valenzuela, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Jennifer G. Zipps United States District Judge
On July 17, 2024, Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a motion for alternative service on Defendants Moses Anthony Valenzuela (“Valenzuela”), TV Technologies LLC, and The Technology & Medical Store Inc. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff's request authorization to serve the Defendants by (1) First Class mail, (2) affixing documents to Valenzuela's front door, and (3) leaving documents with one of Valenzuela's employees at 101 South La Canada Drive #67, Green Valley, AZ 85614. (Id.)
The declarations attached to the pending motion, show that Miranda Romero made multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendants at Valenzuela's residential address of 6418 S. Acadia Desert Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85706, which was also the registered agent address for TV Technologies LLC, and The Technology & Medical Store Inc., and at Valenzuela's place of business at 101 South La Canada Drive #67, Green Valley, AZ 85614. (Doc. 7-1 ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. 1-2; Doc. 7-2 ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 1.) According to Ms. Romero, Valenzuela was not there or he did not answer the door, and most recently one of Valenzuela's employees informed her that Valenzuela and his wife are currently out of the country, visiting his wife's family in Columbia and they won't be returning until sometime in mid/late-July 2024, with no set return date. (Doc. 7-2 ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 1 at 3.)
1. Service Impracticable
Rule 4(e)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides, in part, that “[u]nless federal law provides otherwise, an individual ... may be served in a judicial district of the United States by: (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1). Under Arizona law, an individual may be served by delivering the summons and complaint personally; leaving the documents at the defendants' “dwelling or usual place of abode” with “someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there”; or delivering it to an agent authorized by law or appointment. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d). If a party shows that the means of service provided in Rule 4.1 is “impracticable, the court may on motion and without notice to the person to be served order that service may be accomplished in another manner.” Id. at 4.1(k). Impracticability requires “something less than a complete inability to serve the defendant” or “the ‘due diligence' showing required before service by publication may be utilized.” Blair v. Burgener, 245 P.3d 898, 901, 90304 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2010). The fact that traditional service under Rule 4.1(d) would be “extremely difficult or inconvenient” suffices. Id. at 903. Based on the declaration of Ms. Romero, the Court finds that traditional service on the Defendants would be impracticable. Plaintiffs employed a process server who attempted to serve Defendants at Valenzuela's Tucson residence and Green Valley business addresses on multiple occasions. (Doc. 7-2 ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 1.) Valenzuela was never seen or present. (Id.) It would be difficult, inconvenient, and impracticable for Plaintiffs to continue to attempt to serve Defendants personally in this manner. (Doc. 7-2.)
2. Alternative Means
If traditional service methods prove impracticable, a court can order that service be accomplished in another manner. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k)(1). Process papers posted on a front door and sent by mail have been found to be appropriate alternative methods of service under Arizona law. See DPG Invs. LLC v. Anderson, No. CV-20-01386- PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 8482971, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2020); Baker v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. CV-21-00064-TUC-JGZ, at *3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 8, 2021). Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' requests to serve the Defendants by these two means and by leaving the documents with one of Valenzuela's employees at 101 South La Canada Drive #67, Green Valley, AZ 85614. Plaintiffs must make a reasonable effort to provide the Defendants with actual notice of the action's commencement and must mail the summons, the complaint, and the court order authorizing an alternative means of service to the Defendants' last-known business and residential address. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k)(2). The Plaintiffs must also affix the summons, complaint, and this order to the front door of Valenzuela's residence and leave these documents with one of Valenzuela's employees at 101 South La Canada Drive #67, Green Valley, AZ 85614. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Alternative Service on Defendants (Doc. 7) is granted. Plaintiffs may serve the Defendants by (1) First Class mail, (2) affixing documents to Valenzuela's front door, and (3) leaving documents with one of Valenzuela's employees at 101 South La Canada Drive #67, Green Valley, AZ 85614.