1 WO 2 3 4 5
9 MLB Sales Incorporated, No. CV-23-01526-PHX-DWL
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 RK Gems LLC, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the service 16 deadline and for leave to serve Defendant Pruthi Belavadi (“Belavadi”) via alternative 17 means. (Doc. 8.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted. 19 On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint. (Doc. 1.) In broad strokes, the 20 complaint alleges that Plaintiff is “a leading watch seller for all major brand names”; that 21 Plaintiff previously sold “numerous watches and jewelry” to Defendant RK Gems LLC 22 (“RK Gems”), which is an Alaska-based company owned and operated by Belavadi; that 23 in January 2023, Belavadi orally agreed to purchase two Rolex watches and certain other 24 items from Plaintiff for $70,144 and provided “what appeared to be two cashiers’ checks 25 made out to [Plaintiff] for $15,575 and $28,000, along with a wire transfer for $8,963, as a 26 down payment on the agreed-upon total price for the inventory”; that Plaintiff allowed 27 Belavadi to leave the store with the Rolex watches; and that when Plaintiff later attempted 28 to cash the cashiers’ checks, it learned that the checks were fake and that Belavadi had 1 reversed or otherwise falsified the wire transfer. (Id.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiff 2 asserts various tort and contract claims against RK Gems and Belavadi. (Id.) 3 On August 1, 2023, the Court issued summonses as to both Defendants. (Doc. 6.) 4 On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof of service as to RK Gems. (Doc. 7.) It 5 indicates that service was accomplished by serving RK Gems’ statutory agent, Northwest 6 Registered Agent, Inc., in Anchorage, Alaska. (Id.) 7 That same day, Plaintiff filed the pending motion. (Doc. 8.) The motion and 8 attachments reveal the following. Documents related to RK Gems that are available on the 9 Alaska Department of Commerce’s website indicate (incorrectly) that Belavadi’s personal 10 address is the same address in Anchorage, Alaska as that of RK Gems’ statutory agent. 11 (Id.) “No other genuine address has been located for Belavadi. A skiptrace revealed that 12 Belavadi appears to be using four different social security numbers and multiple fake 13 addresses, many of which are also associated with RK Gems and likewise have been 14 labeled suspect . . . . Additionally, as noted by the process server, Belavadi appears to have 15 ‘very little Internet presence, which for me brings up some red flags on its own.’” (Id.) 16 Plaintiff has also engaged in recent settlement discussions with an unspecified individual 17 using an RK Gems email account, but that individual “has been careful to avoid providing 18 a name.” (Id.) “While RK Gems itself has previously listed additional purported locations, 19 some of which are also listed in connection with Belavadi individually . . . , at least several 20 do not exist, are vacant, or are clearly occupied by third parties. This suggests that RK 21 Gems may in fact not have a storefront at all, and that this corporate subterfuge may exist 22 at least in part to keep Belavadi hidden and protected from service or other reach.” (Id.) 23 “It is clear from negotiations, Defendants’ shared contact information in RK Gem[s’] 24 corporate papers and Belavadi’s payment on behalf of RK Gems during the course of 25 settlement discussions with the rkgemsint@gmail.com e-mail address, that Belavadi is 26 well-aware of the Complaint and the parties’ discussions. However, attempts to obtain a 27 RK Gems storefront or individual residential address for Belavadi to comply with the 28 technical obligations of service[] have thus far been unsuccessful.” (Id.) 2 I. Extension Of Service Deadline 3 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “if the plaintiff 4 shows good cause for the failure [to serve], the court must extend the time for service for 5 an appropriate period.” Id. District courts also have “broad” (but not “limitless”) 6 discretion to extend the service deadline “even in the absence of good cause.” Efaw v. 7 Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). 8 Here, Plaintiff has been diligent in its service attempts and has shown good cause to 9 extend the service deadline. Additionally, this case was initiated only a few months ago. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a 90-day extension of the service deadline is granted. 11 II. Service Via Alternative Means 12 Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an individual (with 13 exceptions not relevant here) may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
14 (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in 15 courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or 16 17 (2) doing any of the following:
18 (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; 19
20 (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion 21 who resides there; or 22 (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by 23 appointment or by law to receive service of process. 24 (Id.) Rule 4.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure details the available state-law 25 procedures for serving process within Arizona. Pursuant to Rule 4.1(d) of the Arizona 26 Rules, an individual may be served within Arizona using the same methods outlined in 27 Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules. Additionally, Rule 4.1(k) of the Arizona Rules provides 28 for alternative means of service: “If a party shows that the means of service provided in 1 Rule 4.1(c) through Rule 4.1(j) are impracticable, the court may—on motion and without 2 notice to the person to be served—order that service may be accomplished in another 3 manner,” in which case “the serving party must make a reasonable effort to provide the 4 person being served with actual notice of the action’s commencement” and must, at a 5 minimum, “mail the summons, the pleading being served, and any court order authorizing 6 an alternative means of service to the last-known business or residential address of the 7 person being served.” 8 Arizona’s Rule 4.1(k) requires a showing of impracticability. Impracticability in 9 this context requires “something less than a complete inability to serve the defendant” and 10 even “something less than the ‘due diligence’ showing required before service by 11 publication may be utilized.” Blair v. Burgener, 245 P.3d 898, 901, 903-04 (Ariz. Ct. App. 12 2010). In the context of Rule 4.1(k), “impracticable” simply means that the traditional 13 means of service have proved to be “extremely difficult or inconvenient.” Id. at 903. 14 Here, the traditional means of service have proved to be impracticable. It appears 15 that Belavadi is actively evading service, despite Plaintiff’s extensive efforts to locate and 16 serve him. (Doc. 8 at 5-6 [“[T]he [statutory] agent was unable to accept on behalf of 17 Belavadi, an individual, despite its address being listed as the authorized contact for 18 Belavadi in RK Gems’ corporate documentation. The process server investigated service 19 at the Front Street location listed as the address behind the payment made by Defendant 20 Belavadi to Plaintiff. This address does not appear to exist, or else is not occupied by 21 Belavadi. No other address has yet to be located that is specific to Belevadi.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5
9 MLB Sales Incorporated, No. CV-23-01526-PHX-DWL
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 RK Gems LLC, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the service 16 deadline and for leave to serve Defendant Pruthi Belavadi (“Belavadi”) via alternative 17 means. (Doc. 8.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted. 19 On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint. (Doc. 1.) In broad strokes, the 20 complaint alleges that Plaintiff is “a leading watch seller for all major brand names”; that 21 Plaintiff previously sold “numerous watches and jewelry” to Defendant RK Gems LLC 22 (“RK Gems”), which is an Alaska-based company owned and operated by Belavadi; that 23 in January 2023, Belavadi orally agreed to purchase two Rolex watches and certain other 24 items from Plaintiff for $70,144 and provided “what appeared to be two cashiers’ checks 25 made out to [Plaintiff] for $15,575 and $28,000, along with a wire transfer for $8,963, as a 26 down payment on the agreed-upon total price for the inventory”; that Plaintiff allowed 27 Belavadi to leave the store with the Rolex watches; and that when Plaintiff later attempted 28 to cash the cashiers’ checks, it learned that the checks were fake and that Belavadi had 1 reversed or otherwise falsified the wire transfer. (Id.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiff 2 asserts various tort and contract claims against RK Gems and Belavadi. (Id.) 3 On August 1, 2023, the Court issued summonses as to both Defendants. (Doc. 6.) 4 On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof of service as to RK Gems. (Doc. 7.) It 5 indicates that service was accomplished by serving RK Gems’ statutory agent, Northwest 6 Registered Agent, Inc., in Anchorage, Alaska. (Id.) 7 That same day, Plaintiff filed the pending motion. (Doc. 8.) The motion and 8 attachments reveal the following. Documents related to RK Gems that are available on the 9 Alaska Department of Commerce’s website indicate (incorrectly) that Belavadi’s personal 10 address is the same address in Anchorage, Alaska as that of RK Gems’ statutory agent. 11 (Id.) “No other genuine address has been located for Belavadi. A skiptrace revealed that 12 Belavadi appears to be using four different social security numbers and multiple fake 13 addresses, many of which are also associated with RK Gems and likewise have been 14 labeled suspect . . . . Additionally, as noted by the process server, Belavadi appears to have 15 ‘very little Internet presence, which for me brings up some red flags on its own.’” (Id.) 16 Plaintiff has also engaged in recent settlement discussions with an unspecified individual 17 using an RK Gems email account, but that individual “has been careful to avoid providing 18 a name.” (Id.) “While RK Gems itself has previously listed additional purported locations, 19 some of which are also listed in connection with Belavadi individually . . . , at least several 20 do not exist, are vacant, or are clearly occupied by third parties. This suggests that RK 21 Gems may in fact not have a storefront at all, and that this corporate subterfuge may exist 22 at least in part to keep Belavadi hidden and protected from service or other reach.” (Id.) 23 “It is clear from negotiations, Defendants’ shared contact information in RK Gem[s’] 24 corporate papers and Belavadi’s payment on behalf of RK Gems during the course of 25 settlement discussions with the rkgemsint@gmail.com e-mail address, that Belavadi is 26 well-aware of the Complaint and the parties’ discussions. However, attempts to obtain a 27 RK Gems storefront or individual residential address for Belavadi to comply with the 28 technical obligations of service[] have thus far been unsuccessful.” (Id.) 2 I. Extension Of Service Deadline 3 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “if the plaintiff 4 shows good cause for the failure [to serve], the court must extend the time for service for 5 an appropriate period.” Id. District courts also have “broad” (but not “limitless”) 6 discretion to extend the service deadline “even in the absence of good cause.” Efaw v. 7 Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). 8 Here, Plaintiff has been diligent in its service attempts and has shown good cause to 9 extend the service deadline. Additionally, this case was initiated only a few months ago. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a 90-day extension of the service deadline is granted. 11 II. Service Via Alternative Means 12 Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an individual (with 13 exceptions not relevant here) may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
14 (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in 15 courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or 16 17 (2) doing any of the following:
18 (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; 19
20 (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion 21 who resides there; or 22 (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by 23 appointment or by law to receive service of process. 24 (Id.) Rule 4.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure details the available state-law 25 procedures for serving process within Arizona. Pursuant to Rule 4.1(d) of the Arizona 26 Rules, an individual may be served within Arizona using the same methods outlined in 27 Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules. Additionally, Rule 4.1(k) of the Arizona Rules provides 28 for alternative means of service: “If a party shows that the means of service provided in 1 Rule 4.1(c) through Rule 4.1(j) are impracticable, the court may—on motion and without 2 notice to the person to be served—order that service may be accomplished in another 3 manner,” in which case “the serving party must make a reasonable effort to provide the 4 person being served with actual notice of the action’s commencement” and must, at a 5 minimum, “mail the summons, the pleading being served, and any court order authorizing 6 an alternative means of service to the last-known business or residential address of the 7 person being served.” 8 Arizona’s Rule 4.1(k) requires a showing of impracticability. Impracticability in 9 this context requires “something less than a complete inability to serve the defendant” and 10 even “something less than the ‘due diligence’ showing required before service by 11 publication may be utilized.” Blair v. Burgener, 245 P.3d 898, 901, 903-04 (Ariz. Ct. App. 12 2010). In the context of Rule 4.1(k), “impracticable” simply means that the traditional 13 means of service have proved to be “extremely difficult or inconvenient.” Id. at 903. 14 Here, the traditional means of service have proved to be impracticable. It appears 15 that Belavadi is actively evading service, despite Plaintiff’s extensive efforts to locate and 16 serve him. (Doc. 8 at 5-6 [“[T]he [statutory] agent was unable to accept on behalf of 17 Belavadi, an individual, despite its address being listed as the authorized contact for 18 Belavadi in RK Gems’ corporate documentation. The process server investigated service 19 at the Front Street location listed as the address behind the payment made by Defendant 20 Belavadi to Plaintiff. This address does not appear to exist, or else is not occupied by 21 Belavadi. No other address has yet to be located that is specific to Belevadi. With four 22 social security numbers, multiple fake addresses for his company, no apparent actual 23 storefront, and a website that disappeared once the theft was complete, Belavadi’s strategy 24 appears to be to avoid service or detection.”].) Additionally, Plaintiff’s proposed 25 alternative methods of service—“serv[ing] Belavadi with the summons and pleading . . . 26 via service by mail to Northwest Registered Agent Inc. at 821 N. St. Suite 102, Anchorage, 27 Alaska 99501 . . . [and] e-mail service via . . . belavadipruthvi@gmail.com and 28 rkgemsint@gmail.com” (id. at 7-8)—constitute “a reasonable effort to provide the person 1 || being served with actual notice of the action’s commencement.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k)(2). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 8) is granted. 4 ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs deadline to serve Belavadi is 5 || extended to February 28, 2024. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service may be accomplished by serving the || complaint, the summons, and this order (1) via mail to Northwest Registered Agent Inc. at 821 N. St. Suite 102, Anchorage, Alaska 99501; and (2) via e-mail to 9|| belavadipruthvi@ gmail.com and rkgemsint @ gmail.com. 10 Dated this 30th day of November, 2023. 11 12 fm ee” 13 f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_5-