Qingdao Kdgarden Import & Export Company Limited v. Dream Big Little Company LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00495
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Qingdao Kdgarden Import & Export No. CV-25-00495-TUC-JCH (JR) Company Limited, 10 ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Dream Big Little Company LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Qingdao Kdgarden Import & Export Company 16 Limited’s Motion for Alternative Service. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff requests permission to serve 17 Defendants Dream Big Little Company LLC (DBL), Christy L. Creviston, and Kyle 18 Creviston by either serving a copy of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants’ 19 attorney Brittany Rattelle or posting a copy of the Summons and Complaint at the 20 Defendants’ confirmed residence while simultaneously mailing copies to the same address. 21 (Id. at 5-6.) For the following reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion. 22 23 BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff filed its Complaint against the Defendants on August 29, 2025. (Doc. 1.) 25 On September 14, 2025, the process server unsuccessfully attempted to serve the 26 Defendants at their last known address, 3509 W. Tailfeather Dr. Marana, AZ 85658. (Doc. 27 11-1.) Upon speaking to the current resident of the home, the Process server was informed 28 that the Defendants had moved to a different home. (Id.) The next day, September 15, 2025, 1 Plaintiff’s counsel received a letter from Brittany Ratelle of Ratelle Law in Hayden, ID on 2 behalf of “her client Christy Creviston, CEO of Dream Big Little Co.” (Doc. 11-2.) 3 Plaintiff hired an investigator and identified Defendants’ new residence as 250 Oro 4 Valley Dr., Tucson, AZ 85737. This address was independently confirmed by a payment 5 receipt which lists DBL’s address as “250 E ORO VALLEY DR TUCSON, AZ 85737- 6 6226.” (Doc. 11-3.) Plaintiff then made four physical attempts to serve the Defendants via 7 process server between September 28 and October 10, 2025. (Doc. 11-4) Defendant Kyle 8 Creviston was contacted by phone, confirmed the address, and scheduled and canceled 9 appointments to accept service three times, ultimately refusing to cooperate. (Id.) 10 11 DISCUSSION 12 1. Service Impracticable 13 Rule 4(e)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides, in part, that “[u]nless federal law provides 14 otherwise, an individual . . . may be served in a judicial district of the United States by: (1) 15 following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general 16 jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made....” Fed. 17 R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Under Arizona law, an individual may be served by delivering the 18 summons and complaint personally; leaving the documents at the defendants’ “dwelling or 19 usual place of abode” with “someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there”; or 20 delivering it to an agent authorized by law or appointment. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d). If a party 21 shows that the means of service provided in Rule 4.1 is “impracticable, the court may—on 22 motion and without notice to the person to be served—order that service may be 23 accomplished in another manner.” Id. at 4.1(k). Impracticability requires “something less 24 than a complete inability to serve the defendant” or “the ‘due diligence’ showing required 25 before service by publication may be utilized.” Blair v. Burgener, 245 P.3d 898, 901, 903- 26 04 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). The fact that traditional service under Rule 4.1(d) would be 27 “extremely difficult or inconvenient” suffices. Id. at 903. 28 Based on the affidavits of non-service of process servers Devorah C. Sanger and 1 Kameron Ellis, the Court finds that traditional service on the Defendants would be 2 impracticable. Plaintiff employed a process server who attempted to serve the Defendants 3 at their two addresses attributed to the Defendants. (See 11-1, 11-4.) Further, the process 4 server made telephonic contact with Defendant Kyle Creviston, who ultimately declined 5 to cooperate. (Doc. 11-4.) It would be difficult, inconvenient, and impracticable for 6 Plaintiff to continue to attempt to serve the Defendants in this manner. See Rios v. Lux 7 Interior & Renovation LLC, No CV-23-01686-PHX-DJH, 2023 WL 6318009, at *2 (D. 8 Ariz. Sept. 28, 2023) (finding alternative service was warranted where plaintiffs 9 unsuccessfully attempted to physically serve defendants on four occasions and contact 10 defendants by phone); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Dodev, 433 P.3d 549, 558 (Ariz. Ct. App. 11 2018) (finding alternative service was warranted where the plaintiff experienced five failed 12 attempt at physical service). 13 2. Alternative Means 14 If traditional service methods prove impracticable, a court can order that service be 15 accomplished in another manner. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k)(1). Process papers posted on a 16 front door and sent by mail have been found to be appropriate alternative methods of 17 service under Arizona law. See DPG Invs. LLC v. Anderson, No. CV-20-01386-PHX- 18 DWL, 2020 WL 8482971, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2020); Baker v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 19 No. CV-21-00064-TUC-JGZ, at *3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 8, 2021). 20 Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to serve the Defendants by posting 21 process papers on the Defendants front door. Plaintiff must make a reasonable effort to 22 provide the Defendants with actual notice of the action’s commencement by mailing the 23 Summons, the Complaint, and this Court Order to the Defendants at their home address at 24 250 Oro Valley Dr., Tucson, AZ 85737 and email copies thereof to Defendants’ attorney 25 Brittany Ratelle. 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service (Doc. 11) is granted. 28 Plaintiff may serve the Defendants by mailing the Summons, Complaint, and this Court Order via First-Class U.S. Mail to the Defendants at 250 Oro Valley Dr., Tucson, AZ || 85737, posting the documents on the front door of the residence, and emailing copies || thereof to Defendants’ attorney Brittany Ratelle. 4 Dated this 20th day of October, 2025. 5 Specguetne Fiteas ’ Hoflorable Jacqueline M. Rateau 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-