Steel et al v. Davis et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:25-CV-60888-ARTAU/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
KIMBERLY and JAMES STEEL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LAWRENCE DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE
SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO SERVE TWO REMAINING DEFENDANTS
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Kimberly and James Steel’s Motion for
Enlargement of Time to Serve Two Remaining Defendants and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Alternative
Service of Process. DE 79; DE 81. The Honorable Ed Artau, United States District Judge, referred
both Motions to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge via court-only staff note on
February 12, 2026. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions and the record and is otherwise
fully advised in the premises. 	For the following reasons, the Motion for Alternative Service of
Process [DE 81] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the Motion for
Enlargement of Time [DE 79] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiffs have yet to serve process on two Defendants named in this lawsuit: Stephen
Stenberg and Chris Pordon. 	Plaintiffs contend that they have used due diligence to attempt to
serve both Defendants, but the Defendants are evading service. 	Plaintiffs state that they
investigated available databases to find addresses for the Defendants, conducted skip traces on the
Defendants, attempted physical service at all known and discovered addresses for the Defendants,
Case 0:25-cv-60888-EA Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
spoke to individuals at those addresses, attempted service by certified mail on the Defendants, sent
notice of the lawsuit to the Defendants’ business email addresses, and created a service website
containing the pleadings and emailed the Defendants a hyperlink to the website. DE 81-2 ¶¶ 14,
19–20, 26–27. Plaintiffs further state that they believe both Defendants are in contact with other
Defendants to this lawsuit, have full knowledge of the lawsuit, and are evading service. Id. ¶¶ 15,
18. Plaintiffs ask the Court to consider their service by email and their creation of a service website
to be adequate alternative service of process on the two Defendants.
Service of process on an individual may be accomplished by “following the 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). Florida law provides a
method for substitute service on an individual who conceals his whereabouts. “When an individual
. . . conceals its whereabouts, the party seeking to effectuate service may, after exercising due
diligence to locate and effectuate personal service, use substituted service pursuant to subsection
(1)[.]” Fla. Stat. § 48.161(4). Subsection 1 allows substitute service of process “by sending a copy
of the process to the office of the Secretary of State.” 	Id. § 48.161(1). 	“The party seeking to
effectuate service must also comply with subsection (3); however, a return receipt or other proof
showing acceptance of receipt of the notice of service and a copy of the process by the concealed
party need not be filed.” 	Id. § 48.161(4). 	Subsection 3 requires (1) an attempt at service at a
defendant’s last known physical address by registered mail, by certified mail with return receipt
requested, or by use of a commercial firm that regularly engages in document or package delivery;
and (2) service by electronic means if the parties have recently and regularly used email or other
electronic means to communicate. Id. § 48.161(3).
Plaintiffs’ various attempts to locate and serve the two Defendants constitute due diligence.
See DE 81-2 ¶¶ 14, 19–20, 26–27; see also Fla. Stat. § 48.161(5) (stating that a serving party uses
Case 0:25-cv-60888-EA Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
due diligence if the party makes diligent inquiry and exerts an honest and conscientious effort
appropriate to the circumstances to acquire information to effectuate personal service, reasonably
employes the knowledge at the party’s command, and makes an appropriate number of attempts
to serve). Given the extent of Plaintiffs’ efforts and the fact that the two Defendants have yet to
be physically served, the Court is satisfied that the Defendants are concealing their whereabouts.
Thus, Plaintiffs’ request to serve the two Defendants by substitute service is granted. As
already stated, substitute service under Florida law requires both service on the Secretary of State
and attempted service by mail and electronic means. 	Fla. Stat. § 48.161(1), (3), (4). 	Plaintiffs
already have attempted to serve the Defendants by certified mail with return receipt requested and
have sent Defendants notice by email. DE 81-2 ¶¶ 19–20, 26–27. To the extent that Plaintiffs ask
that the requirement of service on the Secretary of State be waived, their request is denied.
Plaintiffs have provided no information or argument showing why service on the Secretary of State
cannot be accomplished.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Alternative Service of Process [DE 81] is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs must complete substitute service under Fla. Stat.
§ 48.161 and file proof of service on the Secretary of State within two weeks of the date of this
Order. In light of this ruling, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Serve Two Remaining
Defendants [DE 79] is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 24th day of
February, 2026.
___________________________________
PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 0:25-cv-60888-EA Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2026 Page 3 of 3