4:24-cv-00116
D. Ariz.Apr 29, 2024Background
- Carlos Heredia filed suit against IPVision Inc., IPVision Global Inc., Ben Green, and Martha Zamora and was unable to serve them personally after multiple attempts.
- The process server made several unsuccessful attempts to serve Ben Green at his home and Martha Zamora at her workplace, as well as attempted to contact them by phone.
- Despite these efforts, neither Green nor Zamora responded or made themselves available for service.
- Heredia moved the court for permission to serve the defendants through alternative means: by U.S. Mail, Certified Mail, and email.
- The court reviewed whether further personal service attempts were "impracticable" and if alternative service methods would meet due process requirements.
- The court granted Heredia’s motion, authorizing alternative service to all defendants via specified addresses and email.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alternative service is justified | Multiple failed attempts; evasion shown | Not stated | Yes; defendants are likely evading, service is hard |
| If Arizona law allows alternative service | Statute says if impracticable, it's ok | Not stated | Yes; standards for impracticability satisfied |
| Whether proposed means satisfy due process | Methods are reasonably calculated | Not stated | Yes; mail and email reasonably notify defendants |
| Appropriateness of expanded business address | Service to business needed for Zamora | Not stated | Yes; require additional mailing to Zamora's business |
Key Cases Cited
- Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1986) (establishes requirement for service under Rule 4 for personal jurisdiction)
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 294 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (alternative service meets due process if reasonably calculated to provide notice)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated under circumstances)