U-Haul Co of Arkansas v. Hyatt

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION U-HAUL CO. OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 4:23-cv-828-DPM

WILLIAM HYATT; CAMERON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; SANTOSHI KRUPA, LLC; TERRENCE MICHAEL COLLINS; JOHN MICHAEL BYRD; RICHARD ALLEN; CHRISTOPHER SHAHAN; JESSE HENDERSON; NATHANIEL MARTIN; FRANK LOUIS JOHNSON; BRYAN SMITH; DONNA BYBEE; BRYAN MCCLELLAN; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-20 DEFENDANTS

ORDER Motion, Doc. 16, granted for good cause. Despite diligent inquiry during September 2023 through January 2024, U-Haul has been unable to locate Hyatt to serve him with the complaint and summons. Doc. 16-1. U-Haul 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)._ U-Haul 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 Hyatt will get notice of the lawsuit. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. In addition to publication in a newspaper in circulation in Pulaski County, Arkansas, U-Haul must also serve Hyatt by first class mail to all known recent addresses and by email (with tracking) to any available email address. The draft warning order, Doc. 16-2, is approved with minor changes: the warning order is being issued to William Hyatt, not Leslie Hyatt, and the Court has made some edits. The Court will issue the Order with those changes today. So Ordered.

wPrarell D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge Volk 2024