Ramon v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 24-cv-02667-CNS-STV
JULIAN RAMON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
UBER USA, LLC;
RAISER, LLC; and
NICOLE GRIFFIE,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Substitute Service on
Defendant Nicole Griffie (the “Motion”) [#22], which was referred to this Court [#23].
Through the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court permit substituted service for
Defendant Griffie pursuant to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) and Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 42-7-414(3)(a). 	[#22] 	For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs service of a summons and complaint.
Pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1), an individual within a judicial district of the United States may
be served 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.” 	Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) authorizes substitute service. 	When the
Case No. 1:24-cv-02667-CNS-STV Document 24 filed 12/23/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
party attempting service “is unable to accomplish service . . . the party may file a
motion, supported by an affidavit of the person attempting service, for an order for
substituted service.” Such a motion shall state:
(1) The efforts made to obtain personal service and the 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.
Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f). If the court is satisfied that due diligence has been used to attempt
personal service, that further attempts to obtain personal service would be to no avail,
and that the person to whom delivery of the process is directed is appropriate under the
circumstances and reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party upon whom
service is to be effective, it shall: “(1) authorize delivery to be made to the person
deemed 	appropriate 	for 	service, 	and 	(2) 	order 	the 	process 	to 	be 	mailed 	to 	the
address(es) of the party to be served by substituted service, as set forth in the motion,
on or before the date of delivery.” 	Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f). 	For substitute service to be
valid, it must comport with due process by being calculated “to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
Plaintiff asks the Court to allow service on Progressive, the insurer of the vehicle
being driven by Defendant Griffie at the time of the accident from which the instant
lawsuit arises. 	[#22 generally] 	Under Colorado law, there are certain circumstances
where an insurer may be served as a substitute for the insured. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §
42-7-414. Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-414(3)(a):
The insurance carrier that issues a motor vehicle liability policy accepted
as proof under this article shall include the following provision in the policy
Case No. 1:24-cv-02667-CNS-STV Document 24 filed 12/23/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
contract: “If the insured's whereabouts for service of process cannot be
determined through reasonable effort, the insured agrees to designate and
irrevocably appoint the insurance carrier as the agent of the insured for
service of process, pleadings, or other filings in a civil action brought
against 	the 	insured 	or 	to 	which 	the 	insured 	has 	been 	joined 	as 	a
defendant or respondent in any Colorado court if the cause of action
concerns an incident for which the insured can possibly claim coverage.
Subsequent 	termination 	of 	the 	insurance 	policy 	does 	not 	affect 	the
appointment for an incident that occurred when the policy was in effect.
The insured agrees that any such civil action may be commenced against
the insured by the service of process upon the insurance carrier as if
personal service had been made directly on the insured. The insurance
carrier agrees to forward all communications related to service of process
to the last-known e-mail and mailing address of the policyholder in order to
coordinate any payment of claims or defense of claims that are required.”
Courts have analyzed Motions for Substitute Service pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 42-7-414(3)(a) by reviewing the relevant insurance policy to correctly identify whether
the elements of the statute have been satisfied. 	See Ornelas v. Cauthon, No. 24-cv-
01888-KAS, 2024 WL 4534582, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 18, 2024); Podlacha v. Dobrovlny,
No. 20-cv-01801-WJM-KMT, 2020 WL 6158605, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 21, 2020).
Here, the Court finds the Motion substantively deficient, as the Motion and the
attached statements fail to establish that the person to whom delivery of substitute
process is proposed—Progressive Insurance—is appropriate and reasonably calculated
to give actual notice to Defendant. 	The Motion contends that Defendant Griffie was
insured by Progressive at the time of the accident from which this case arises. [#22 at ¶
6] 	However, this statement is not supported by any evidence for the Court to consider,
specifically the Defendant’s insurance policy with Progressive, which is most relevant to
this Motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion [#22] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff
may refile a Motion for substitute service that corrects the deficiencies identified herein
Case No. 1:24-cv-02667-CNS-STV Document 24 filed 12/23/24 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
and complies with the requirements of Colorado Rule 4(f) or Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-
414(3)(a).
DATED: December 23, 2024 	BY THE COURT:
s/Scott T. Varholak
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-02667-CNS-STV Document 24 filed 12/23/24 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4