Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Johandry Miranda sued Tucson Deliveries LLC and its co-owners William Serrano and Mirian V. Gutierrez for alleged wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Virginia wage laws. The court granted Plaintiff's motion for alternative service after five unsuccessful personal service attempts over twenty days at the Defendants' shared residential and business address. The court ordered service via U.S. Mail and Certified U.S. Mail to 21554 West Sonora Street, Buckeye, AZ 85326.
Issues
The central legal question is whether the plaintiff's five unsuccessful attempts at personal service over twenty days, including active evasion by defendants who shut the door on the process server, constitute impracticability under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(k)(1) that warrants alternative service by mail and posting. The court also needed to determine whether mailing and posting the summons and complaint to the defendants' residential address satisfies constitutional due process requirements under Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank.
Holdings
The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Alternative Service, ordering that service be accomplished via U.S. Mail and Certified U.S. Mail, along with posting the summons and complaint on the front door of 21554 West Sonora Street, Buckeye, AZ 85326, to the Defendants.
Remedies
The court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Alternative Service, ordering service by U.S. Mail and Certified U.S. Mail to 21554 West Sonora Street, Buckeye, AZ 85326, and posting a copy on the front door of the address.
Legal Principles
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(k) to authorize alternative service by U.S. Mail and Certified U.S. Mail. The legal standard for impracticable service requires showing that personal service is 'extremely difficult or inconvenient,' not impossible. Plaintiff demonstrated impracticability through five unsuccessful service attempts over twenty days at varying times, with evidence of active evasion by defendants. Due process is satisfied when alternative service is 'reasonably calculated' to apprise interested parties of the action, and mailing to the address where personal service was attempted is sufficient.
Precedent Name
- Blair v. Burgener
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Dodey
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
- BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. D.R.C. Invests., L.L.C.
Cited Statute
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k)
- Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4.1(k)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(e)(1)
Judge Name
Michael T. Liburdi
Passage Text
- IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Alternative Service.
- Impracticable does not mean impossible, but rather that service would be 'extremely difficult or inconvenient.'
- Plaintiff's unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendants at their place of residence and business rise to the level of impracticability that warrants alternative service under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(k)(1).