Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company v. Luis Miranda, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-04251
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance No. CV-25-04251-PHX-DWL Company, 10 ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Luis Miranda, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve Defendant Edwin 16 Wayne Jung (“Jung”) via alternative means. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons that follow, the 17 motion is granted. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint. (Doc. 1.) The complaint 20 arises from an alleged incident in October 2023 in which Jung was bitten by a dog while 21 walking near an auto shop owned and operated by Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. ¶¶ 8-14.) 22 Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it owes no duty to indemnify or defend its insured. (Id. at 23 11-12.) 24 On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff obtained a summons issued to Jung. (Doc. 7.) 25 Between November 23, 2025 and December 15, 2025, a process server hired by 26 Plaintiff made nine unsuccessful attempts to serve Jung at Jung’s last known residential 27 address, which is located on E. Riviera Drive in Tempe, Arizona (“the Jung Residence”). 28 (Doc. 12 at 2 ¶¶ 3-5.) During one service attempt, the process server observed “a sign in 1 the yard that says ‘Jung.’” (Id. at 7.) During the final service attempt, the process server 2 “spoke with a ‘John Doe,’ of high school age, who when asked for Edwin Wayne Jung, all 3 he stated is ‘no’ and closed the door. . . . There is a sign on the yard from Hamilton High 4 School Swim & Dive says Tay ‘Boogie’ Jung.” (Id.at 8.) 5 On December 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for leave to serve by 6 alternative means. (Doc. 12.) 7 DISCUSSION 8 Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an individual (with 9 exceptions not relevant here) may be served in a judicial district of the United States by: 10 (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 11 located or where service is made; or 12 (2) doing any of the following: 13

14 (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; 15 16 (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion 17 who resides there; or 18 (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by 19 appointment or by law to receive service of process. 20 Under Rule 4.1(d) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, an individual may be 21 served within Arizona using the same methods outlined in Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal 22 Rules. 23 Rule 4.1(k) of the Arizona Rules provides for alternative means of service: “If a 24 party shows that the means of service provided in Rule 4.1(c) through Rule 4.1(j) are 25 impracticable, the court may—on motion and without notice to the person to be served— 26 order that service may be accomplished in another manner,” in which case “the serving 27 party must make a reasonable effort to provide the person being served with actual notice 28 of the action’s commencement” and must, at a minimum, “mail the summons, the pleading || being served, and any court order authorizing an alternative means of service to the last- || known business or residential address of the person being served.” 3 Arizona’s Rule 4.1(k) requires a showing of impracticability. Impracticability in 4|| this context requires “something less than a complete inability to serve the defendant” and 5|| even “something less than the ‘due diligence’ showing required before service by || publication may be utilized.” Blair v. Burgener, 245 P.3d 898, 901, 903-04 (Ariz. Ct. App. 7\| 2010). In the context of Rule 4.1(k), “impracticable” simply means that the traditional 8 || means of service have proved to be “extremely difficult or inconvenient.” Jd. at 903. 9 The Court finds that the traditional means of service have proved to be || impracticable. Plaintiff’s proposed alternative means of service—“(1) affixing a copy of 11 || the Summons and Complaint to the front door of the Jung Residence; (2) USPS first-class 12 || mail to the Jung Residence; and (3) USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to the Jung Residence” (Doc. 12 at 3)—constitute “a reasonable effort to provide the person being 14|| served with actual notice of the action’s commencement,” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k)(2), with 15 || the caveat that Plaintiff must also include a copy of this order in each packet of materials. 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 12) is granted. 19 2. Service on Jung may be accomplished by (1) affixing a copy of the 20 || Summons, the Complaint, and this order to the front door of the Jung Residence; (2) USPS first-class mail of the same documents to the Jung Residence; and (3) USPS Certified Mail 22 || Return Receipt Requested of the same documents to the Jung Residence. 23 Dated this 7th day of January, 2026. 24

26 f t _o——— Dominic W. Lanza a7 United States District Judge 28

-3-