Hill v. Amity One Tax LLC
3:25-cv-00510
N.D. Tex.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Adean Hill Jr. filed a pro se complaint against Amity One Tax, LLC (aka Amity Tax Solutions) and Ariyo Mackay, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
- Judge Sam A. Lindsay referred the case to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for pretrial management.
- Hill paid the filing fee, thus became responsible for properly serving each defendant as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
- Hill was warned that failure to perfect service or provide proof by May 29, 2025, could lead to dismissal unless good cause was shown.
- After the deadline, Hill moved for leave to serve Amity One Tax through alternative means, citing difficulties effectuating service.
- Hill’s motion for substituted service was unsupported by a sworn affidavit, as required under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106, and did not address service on co-defendant Ariyo Mackay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff can obtain leave for substitute service on Amity One Tax | Hill argued that service by alternative methods (CA Secretary of State, email, certified mail) should be permitted due to difficulties with personal service | No argument (motion was ex parte and defendants unserved) | Motion denied without prejudice; no supporting affidavit provided |
| Whether Texas law permits service by certified mail without court order | Hill requested permission for certified mail service, treating it as substitute service | No argument | Certified mail is a default permissible method; no court leave needed |
| Whether Hill showed good cause for an extension of time to serve Amity One Tax | Hill described difficulties, implicitly suggesting good cause | No argument | Court grants extension for service on Amity One Tax until July 7, 2025 |
| Whether motion addressed both defendants and proper extension date | Motion focused only on Amity One Tax, lacked specific request for time extension or mention of Mackay | No argument | Motion denied in part for Mackay, extension granted only for Amity One Tax |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. 1993) (describes requirements for substitute service under Texas law)
- Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (affidavit required for substitute service)