Canal Insurance Company v. Patterson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:23-cv-1029-DPM

MARVIN PATTERSON and GEORGE PATTERSON DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Motion, Doc. 18, granted for good cause. Despite diligent inquiry during November 2023 through June 2024, Canal Insurance has been unable to locate George Patterson to serve him with the complaint and summons. Doc. 8-10, 12 & 17. Canal Insurance may therefore proceed with service by warning order. This is the best that can be done in the circumstances; and it’s consistent with due process and the Federal Rules. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 317 (1950); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Canal Insurance must follow the terms of Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4(g)(3)(A)-(D) exactly—and then some. The company must take extra steps that, considering all the circumstances, are needed to maximize the chance George Patterson will get notice of the lawsuit. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. In addition to publication in a newspaper in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in the Pine Bluff Commercial section, Canal Insurance must also serve George Patterson by first class mail to all known

recent addresses and by email (with tracking) to any available email address. The Court extends the time for service on George Patterson until 28 October 2024. The draft warning order, Doc. 18-2, is approved with minor changes. The Court will issue the Order with those changes today. 2. The parties’ Rule 26(f) report is overdue. Doc. 15. If the Court doesn’t hear from the parties by 26 August 2024, the Court will file its draft as the Final Scheduling Order. So Ordered.

parsl ll D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge [5 aoa