Wrany et al v. El Paso County, Colorado et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell
Civil Action No. 25–cv–03248–DDD–MDB
AMY WRANY, and
ASHLEY JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, by and through its Board of Commissioners,
EL PASO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
OFFICE OF THE CHILD’S REPRESENTATIVE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF CHILD’S REPRESENTATIVE, in his or her
official capacity,
JESSICA DRIVER,
CODY CHRISTIAN,
KEVIN MAJOR, and
LESHA DELANEY,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on five service motions filed by Plaintiffs:
1. 	“Renewed Motion for Leave to Effect Alternate Service
(Defendant Cody Christian Individual Capacity)” ([“Second
Christian Motion”], Doc. No. 43);
2. 	“Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Effect Alternate Service,
Supplemental Declaration, and Certificate of Service (Defendant
Cody Christian – Individual Capacity)” ([“Third Christian
Motion”], Doc. No. 56); and
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 70 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 6

2
3. 	“Status Notice Regarding Pending Motion for Alternate Service &
Conditional Motion for Brief Extension of Time to Complete
Service.” ([“Fourth Christian Motion”], Doc. No. 65.)
4. 	“ Motion for Ruling on Pending Motions for Leave to Effect
Alternate Service or, in the Alternative, for Extension of Time
Under Rule 4(m).” ([“Fifth Christian Motion”], Doc. No. 68.)
5. 	“Motion for Extension of Time to Effect Service of Process, or in
the Alternative, for Authorization of Alternate Service Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P.4(m) and 4(e)” ([“Combined Motion”], Doc. No. 45);
Upon review of each of these motions, the Court ORDERS that the Second, Third, and Fourth
Christian Motions, and the Combined Motion, be DENIED without prejudice. The Fifth
Christian Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFFS
The Court is denying your request for substituted service because even though multiple
service attempts have been made, they have all been at one address, sometimes when the office
appeared closed. There is no evidence of attempts to find additional addresses, or evidence that
proper service attempts would be futile. However, the Court is extending your time for service
one last time and cautions that failure to serve Ms. Christian could result in a recommendation of
dismissal. This is only a high-level summary of this Order. The complete Order is set forth
below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs initiated this action on October 15, 2025, for alleged civil rights violations in
connection with child welfare proceedings in El Paso County, Colorado. (See generally Doc. No.
10.) Defendant Cody Christian is the Guardian Ad Litem in the child welfare case. (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiffs allege they have made good faith efforts to serve Defendant Christian at her known
workplace address between November 2025 and January 2026. (Doc. No. 56.) To support these
contentions, Plaintiffs submit certificates of non-service by the El Paso County sheriff’s office
and by Trailfinders, a private process server. (Id.; Doc. No. 55-1.)
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 70 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 6

3
The Combined Motion concerns service on the Office of the Child Representative
(“OCR”); the OCR Executive Director, Chris Henderson; Jessica Driver; and Cody Christian.
(Doc. No. 45 at 1-2.) However, all defendants, except Ms. Christian, have been served or have
filed waivers of service. (Doc. Nos. 25, 51, 52.) Thus, the only remaining service issue concerns
Defendant Christian.
Plaintiffs previously moved for an order allowing substituted service by email on Ms.
Christian. (Doc. No. 27.) On December 30, 2025, the Court denied that request without
prejudice. (Doc. No. 40.) In that same order, the Court gave Plaintiffs until January 30, 2026, to
serve Ms. Christian. (Id.) Now, Plaintiffs renew their request to serve Defendant Christian via
email. (Doc. Nos. 43, 56.) Plaintiffs filed two additional motions requesting the same relief and,
in the alternative, request an extension to serve Ms. Christian. (Doc. Nos. 65, 68.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that a plaintiff may serve process on an
individual located within the United States by either: (1) “delivering a copy of the summons and
of the complaint to the individual personally;” (2) “leaving a copy of each at the individual's
dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there;”
or (3) “delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Alternatively, service of such an individual may be
accomplished by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of
general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
In Colorado, personal service is the default method of service. Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
Personal service upon a natural person may be achieved by leaving the complaint and summons
at the defendant’s normal place of abode with a family member over 18 years of age, or at the
defendant’s workplace with their “supervisor, secretary, administrative assistant, bookkeeper,
human resources representative or managing agent.” Id. Where service by mail or publication is
not otherwise authorized pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(g), a party “may file a motion, supported
by an affidavit of the person attempting service, for an order for substituted service.” Colo. R.
Civ. P. 4(f). The motion must set forth “(1) the efforts made to obtain personal service and the
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 70 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 6

4
reason that personal service could not be obtained, (2) the identity of the person to whom the
party wishes to deliver the process, and (3) the address, or last known address of the workplace
and residence, if known, of the party upon whom service is to be effected.” (Id.)
If the motion satisfies these requirements, demonstrates due diligence, the futility of
further attempts, and that the person to whom the party seeks to deliver service is “appropriate
under the circumstances and reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party upon whom
service is to be effectuated,” the court will authorize substitute service. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs’ motions do not meet the requirements of Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f). The rule
authorizes substituted service upon a substituted “person.” Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f); see, e.g., Lodos
v. Empire Towing Corp., 2025 WL 580485, at *2 (discussing denial of substituted service
because moving party failed to identify a substituted person to receive service on behalf of the
person named in the summons and complaint). Substituted service through electronic means may
be appropriate when the defendant has previously responded to communication through those
channels, and when electronic service is combined with other forms of service. See, e.g., Clarke
v. Regions Home Improvement Financing et. al., 2025 WL 3496178, at *4 (service via text
message at a number defendant previously used to communicate with plaintiffs and to refuse
service, combined with service via certified mail, is reasonably calculated to apprise defendant of
the action). Here, Plaintiffs request service by email only. (Doc. No. 43 at 2; Doc. No. 56 at 2.)
They do not identify a substituted person who could receive service of process on Ms.
Christian’s behalf, nor do they demonstrate Ms. Christian’s ability to receive actual notice of this
action through the email address Plaintiffs propose.
Furthermore, the Court is not convinced of due diligence or futility. Persistent attempts to
effectuate personal service at multiple addresses suggest due diligence. See, e.g., Clarke, 2025
WL 3496178, at *2 (finding due diligence where service was attempted at three different
addresses in two states tied to a corporate defendant); Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Cournoyer et al., 2025 WL 2401986, at *1 (due diligence was done where Plaintiff attempted to
serve sole manager of a corporate defendant at four different work and residential addresses).
Here, Plaintiffs have made multiple attempts at service, but they were all directed at one office
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 70 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 6

5
address, and in some instances when the office appeared closed. Specifically, Plaintiffs made
seven attempts to serve Ms. Christian at her last known place of work: 10 Boulder Crescent
Street, #303, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80903. (Doc. No. 55-1.) Three of these attempts were
made by the El Paso County Sheriff in November and December 2025. (Id.) On the first two
attempts, the deputy could not locate Ms. Christian but left contact cards with other individuals
in her office building. (Id.) On the third attempt, the deputy found the office closed. (Id.) In early
January, private process server Trailfinder attempted to serve Ms. Christian at the same address.
(Doc. No. 55.) On most of those attempts, the office appeared closed, locked, and empty. (Id.)
During one attempt, Trailfinder contacted an individual who worked in the same shared office
space, and they indicated Ms. Christian would not be in the office for “most of the day.” (Id.)
On this record, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs have exercised sufficient due
diligence. Though they have made several good-faith attempts to serve Ms. Christian at a single
address, they have not documented any efforts to find additional work or residential addresses.
Cf. Clarke, 2025 WL 3496178, at *2 (due diligence included searches of Secretary of State
websites, dockets, social media, and other online sources to identify addresses for service).
Additionally, the recorded service attempts were made over a fairly short period of time. (Doc.
Nos. 55 (efforts between January 8-13, 2026); 55-1 (efforts in late November and early
December 2025).) It is unclear whether these attempts at service were unsuccessful because Ms.
Christian moved offices, was in court or out of town, or evading service. As such, the Court
cannot say that future attempts to personally serve Ms. Christian would prove unsuccessful. See
Colony Ins. Co. v. Bristlecone Montessori Sch., 2021 WL 50893, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 5, 2021)
(due diligence not demonstrated where Plaintiff provided no allegations that Defendant was
evading personal service, rather than simply not at home when service was attempted); cf.
Cournoyer, 2025 WL 2401986 at *1 (due diligence found where service was attempted by
multiple means across a fifteen-month period). Moreover, Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) offers several
options for personal service, and the record does not support a finding that all methods would be
futile here.
Still, and given Plaintiffs’ good-faith efforts to serve Ms. Christian thus far and their
request for an extension in the Fifth Christian Motion, the Court finds good cause to give
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 70 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 6

6
Plaintiffs one final extension of time to serve Ms. Christian. Plaintiffs are on notice that failure to
effect service in the allotted time could result in a recommendation of dismissal.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1. 	The Second Christian Motion, Doc. No. 43, Third Christian Motion, Doc. No. 56, and
Fourth Christian Motion, Doc. No. 65, are DENIED.
2. 	The Combined Motion, Doc. No. 45, is DENIED insofar as it seeks leave to serve Ms.
Christian by alternative means and is FOUND MOOT in all other regards.
3. 	The Fifth Christian Motion, Doc. No. 68, is GRANTED in part insofar as it seeks an
extension of time for service. The deadline to serve Cody Christian is extended through
March 16, 2026. The Motion is otherwise DENIED.
This Order shall be mailed to:
Amy Wrany
2529 Windsor Road
Ponca City, OK 74601
Ashley Johnson
1007 South 9th Street
Ponca City, OK 74601
Dated this 13th day of February, 2026,
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
Maritza Dominguez Braswell
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 70 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 6