Doe (A.A.M) v. RUSHABH JIVAN LLC, 5:24-cv-01479

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a complaint against Rushabh Jivan LLC (doing business as Safari Inn Motel) under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
Plaintiff has been unable to personally serve the registered agent, Rushabkumar Bhakta, at the address listed with the Texas Secretary of State.
A process server attempted service at 514 Enrique M Barrera Pkwy, but was told Bhakta does not work or come to that location; all attempts to find alternate addresses have failed.
The Texas Secretary of State's records confirm the address as the correct business location and Bhakta as the registered agent.
Plaintiff moved for substituted service under Texas Rules after demonstrating that traditional personal and mail service was unsuccessful.
The court previously ordered Plaintiff to show cause for failure to effectuate service within the 90-day period required by Federal Rule 4(c), and this motion for substituted service was filed in response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substituted service is warranted	Service attempted but impossible/burdensome	Not stated	Substituted service authorized under Tex. Rule 106
Adequacy of affidavit for substituted service	Affidavit identifies location and failed attempts	Not stated	Affidavit strictly complies with Rule 106(b)
Timeliness of service	Good faith efforts for service; motion timely	Not stated	30-day extension to effect service granted
Method of substituted service	Sought multiple alternative methods	Not stated	Alternative methods (delivery or posting + mail) ok

Taylor v. State, 293 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (personal service preferred under Texas law due to reliability)
Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (affidavits for substituted service must strictly comply with Rule 106(b))
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. 1993) (substituted service may be authorized only after unsuccessful attempts at prescribed methods)