Vyacheslav Stefoglo, et al. v. David Lee Boylan, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-04420
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Vyacheslav Stefoglo, et al., No. CV-25-04420-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Lee Boylan, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Vyacheslav Stefoglo and Lilya Stefoglo’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion 16 for Alternative Service on David Lee Boylan (“Boylan”) and Extension of Time for the 17 service deadline. (Doc. 19). According to Plaintiffs, they have been unsuccessful in their 18 extensive efforts to serve Boylan by traditional means. (Id. at 4). Because Plaintiffs have 19 shown that traditional means of service are impracticable, Plaintiffs’ Motion for 20 Alternative Service will be granted. 21 Alternative Service 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) allows service to be completed on a 23 defendant by following the state law of the state in which the district court is located. Ariz. 24 R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). In Arizona, if a plaintiff can show that the means of service provided 25 for in Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(c) through 4.1(j) are impracticable, the court, 26 on a motion, or on its own, may authorize that service can be accomplished by other means. 27 Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k)(1). Impractical has been defined by the Arizona courts as 28 “extremely difficult or inconvenient.” Blair v. Burgener, 245 P.3d 898, 904 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1 2010). 2 Here, Plaintiffs tried to physically serve Boylan twice. The first time was on 3 November 5, 2025. (Doc. 19 at 2). Plaintiffs ran what they call a “skip trace,” to find 4 Boylan and came up with this address: 255 N. Gilbert Rd # 154, Mesa, AZ 85203. (Id.) 5 This was the same address that Boylan listed on the collision report resulting from the 6 collision that is at the center of the controversy between Boylan and Plaintiffs. (Id.) They 7 then hired Greyhound Legal Services (Greyhound”) to serve Boylan at that address. (Id.) 8 However, Greyhound’s attempts to serve Boylan at that location were unsuccessful 9 because the person who answered the door stated that they had never heard of anyone by 10 that name. (Id.) So, Plaintiffs tried a second time. 11 Plaintiff’s second attempt was also unfruitful. Plaintiffs once again ran a “skip 12 trace” online to find Boylan. This time, the address that populated for Boylan was 5911 E. 13 Main St, Unit 215, Mesa, AZ 85205. (Doc. 19 at 2). When Greyhound attempted service 14 at this location, they confirmed it was a hotel building. (Id.) There was also no response 15 when they knocked on the door of the specific unit Boylan was supposed to be staying at. 16 (Id.) 17 Then, Plaintiffs state they received an email from an Alexander Lindberg 18 (“Lindberg”), a practicing attorney,1 stating that service of process would only be accepted 19 on Boylan’s behalf at the following email account: phoenixlocal@libertymutual.com. 20 (Id. at 3). However, Plaintiffs state they were later told by Lindberg that he would not be 21 able to accept service on behalf of Boylan and that he would come in to represent Boylan 22 only once Boylan had been served. (Id.) In response, Plaintiffs state they asked Lindberg 23 to waive service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). (Id.) The waiver for service 24 never materialized because, according to Plaintiffs, Lindberg could not contact Boylan. 25 (Id.) Finally, on January 20, 2026, Lindberg reached out to Plaintiffs to tell them that he 26 had “exhausted all efforts in contacting our insured, to no avail. Please proceed with your 27 motion re alternative means.” (Id. at 4). Taking that advice to heart, Plaintiffs are now

28 1 It is not entirely clear, but the Court believes Lindberg is an attorney representing Boylan’s insurance carrier, and to some extent, Boylan. 1 asking the Court for alternative service to mail the summons and Complaint to Boylan’s 2 last known address as well as send a copy to his attorney Alexander Lindberg. Because 3 the Court believes that Plaintiffs have adequately exhausted traditional means of service, 4 the Court will grant the Motion. Alternative service by mail also comports with due process 5 because it is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested 6 parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 7 objections.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Plaintiffs should send a copy of the Summons, Complaint, Preliminary Order, and a Copy 9 of the Order Granting Alternative Service, via regular US Mail, certified mail, and by 10 posting to the door of Boylan’s last known address. This will reasonably apprise Boylan 11 as to the action against him. 12 Extension of Time 13 Plaintiffs have also asked the Court for an extension of time to serve their Complaint 14 and summons. A plaintiff ordinarily must serve a defendant with the complaint within 90 15 days of its filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If this time period lapses without service, the court 16 “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be 17 made within a specified time.” Id. (emphasis added). This 90-day limit “does not apply to 18 service in a foreign country,” id., but a plaintiff also does not have “an unlimited time” for 19 such service, and the Court may set a reasonable time limit. See, e.g., Inst. of Cetacean 20 Rsch. v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1291, 1320 (W.D. Wash. 21 2015). 22 Here, Plaintiffs were ordered by this Court to serve all Defendants in this case by 23 January 29, 2026. (Doc. 15 at 2). Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Alternative Service and 24 Extension of Time on January 21, 2026. Based on the above chronology, the Court finds 25 that the Motion for Extension of Time should be granted. 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Alternative Service (Doc. 19) is 28 granted. The Court will allow Plaintiffs to serve the Summons, Verified Complaint, 1 || Preliminary Order, and this Order on Defendant David Lee Boylan by doing the following: □□ Mailing via regular US mail, certified mail, and posting to the door of Defendant David 3 || Lee Boylan’s last known address located at: 255 N. Gilbert Rd. #154, Mesa, AZ 85203; 4|| anda copy to Alexander Lindberg at alexander.lindberg@libertymutual.com. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension of Time || (Doc. 19) for service is granted. Plaintiffs now have until February 13, 2026, to serve 7\| Defendant David Lee Boylan. 8 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026. 9 10 oC. . oe □ norable' Diané4. Hurtetewa 2 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-