Hunsinger v. Doe Corporation

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOE HUNSINGER, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§
§ 	No. 3:25-CV-1690-E-BW
LUDCHEEL HARDLEY COLAS 	§
and DOMINIC BURLESON, 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Joe Hunsinger, appearing pro se, filed a Motion for Substitute Service
on February 28, 2026. (Dkt. No. 15.) For the reasons explained below, Hunsinger’s
motion is GRANTED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND
Hunsinger originally filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act against a Doe Corporation using certain phone numbers.
(See Dkt. No. 3.) On February 19, 2026, after conducting limited discovery prior to
the Rule 26(f) conference, Hunsinger filed an amended complaint identifying
Ludcheel Hardley Colas and Dominic Burleson as the defendants in this action.
(Dkt. No. 9.) The clerk issued summonses for these defendants, and, on February
27, Hunsinger filed proof of service as to Burleson. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14.)
1 This pro se case was automatically referred to the undersigned magistrate judge
pursuant to Special Order 3-251. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-01690-E-BW Document 16 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID <pageID>

-2-
Hunsinger filed the instant motion requesting authorization to serve
Defendant Colas by alternative means permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) and Tex.
R. Civ. P. 106(b). In support of the motion, Hunsinger states that a process server
has been unable to serve Colas in person at his principal place of business, which also
appears to be his residence. Hunsinger attached information showing that Colas
holds a license issued by the Florida Department of Financial Services using a
business address at 22784 Penny Loop in Land O Lakes, Florida. (Dkt. No. 15 at
ECF pp. 5, 7.)2 A Florida processes server, Gregg Scott, provided a sworn proof of
service stating that he made three unsuccessful attempts to serve Colas at that
address. (Id. at ECF p. 14 (“Scott Aff.”).) On February 23, 2026, Scott attempted
service at 4:14 a.m. Florida time.3 There was no answer at the door; Scott noticed
two cars parked at the home and left his contact information. On February 24, he
tried again at 7:44 p.m., this time seeing the same two cars and an additional one
parked at the house and observing lights on inside. He again got no answer at the
door and left his contact information. Finally, on February 25, Scott attempted
service at 11:02 a.m. There was no answer at the door, and Scott saw the same two
cars from the first attempt and again left his card.
2 Hunsinger is reminded of his obligation to follow court rules, including the court’s
requirement that supporting documents be filed in a separate appendix that uses (and cites)
sequentially numbered pages rather than assigned exhibit letters or numbers. See N.D. Tex.
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i), 7.2(e).
3 Scott’s affidavit indicates that the times reported for attempted service are CST—
the Central time zone. (See Scott Aff.)
Case 3:25-cv-01690-E-BW Document 16 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID <pageID>

-3-
Hunsinger seeks authorization to serve Colas in three ways: (1) by mailing the
summons and a copy of the complaint to the Penny Loop address, (2) by sending the
summons and complaint by email to ludcheelcolas@gmail.com, and (3) by sending
an additional copy of the summons and complaint by email to
advisor@realtorsmedicalbenefits.com. A printout of information available online
shows that the gmail.com address is associated with Colas’s insurance license. (Dkt.
No. 15 at ECF p. 7.) And information received by Hunsinger in response to the
subpoena served on a telecommunications company shows that the user of the
account, using the same Penny Loop address, maintains the
realtorsmedicalbenefits.com email address. (Id. at ECF pp. 11, 13.)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that “an individual . . . may be
served in a judicial district of the United States 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).
This Court is located in the state of Texas, and Plaintiff seeks to effect service
in Texas. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106 provides:
(a) Unless the citation or court order otherwise directs, the citation must
be served by:
(1) delivering to the defendant, in person, a copy of
the citation, showing the delivery date, and of the
petition; or
Case 3:25-cv-01690-E-BW Document 16 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID <pageID>

-4-
(2) mailing to the defendant by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the
citation and of the petition.
(b) Upon motion supported by a statement—sworn to before a notary or
made under penalty of perjury—listing any location where the
defendant can probably be found and stating specifically the facts
showing that service has been attempted under (a)(1) or (a)(2) at the
location named in the statement but has not been successful, the court
may authorize service:
(1) by leaving a copy of the citation and of the
petition with anyone older than sixteen at the
location specified in the statement; or
(2) in any other manner, including electronically by
social media, email, or other technology, that the
statement or other evidence shows will be
reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of
the suit.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 106.
So, under Texas Rule 106(b), if a plaintiff’s attempts to serve a defendant in
person or by registered or certified mail are unsuccessful, a court may authorize
substituted service only after receiving the required sworn statement and only in a
manner that is reasonably calculated to provide notice. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b);
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Tex. 1993). If a defendant
is absent or a nonresident of Texas, that defendant still may be served in the same
manner as a resident defendant. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 108.
Comment to 2020 Change to the Texas rule notes that a court may “permit
service of citation electronically by social media, email, or other technology. In
determining whether to permit electronic service of process, a court should consider
Case 3:25-cv-01690-E-BW Document 16 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID <pageID>

-5-
whether the technology actually belongs to the defendant and whether the defendant
regularly uses or recently used the technology.” Order Amending Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure 106 and 108a, Misc. Docket No. 20-9103, (Tex. Aug. 21, 2020),
available at https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1449613/209103.pdf.
When a plaintiff demonstrates that the technology accounts belong to and
were recently used by the defendant, courts are more likely to find that electronic
service would be “reasonably effective” in giving notice of the lawsuit. See, e.g.,
Chrisenberry v. Ketcher, 2022 WL 2762219, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 18, 2022) (allowing
substitute service by social media when plaintiff showed that defendant had been
active on his social media account in the past month and plaintiff identified the
account as the defendant’s through the account’s photographs); Sec. and Exch.
Comm’n v. Plummer, 2022 WL 1643958, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. May 23, 2022) (granting
service by email when plaintiff presented evidence that defendant’s email address
belonged to defendant and was used less than three months prior); Hernandez v. Erazo,
2022 WL 17490682, at *1-2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2022) (finding service by email and
social media proper when the accounts belonged to respondent and petitioner had
previously used them to communicate with respondent).
As to the sworn statement requirement, “[t]he court may authorize substituted
service pursuant to Rule 106(b) only if the plaintiff’s supporting affidavit strictly
complies with the requirements of the Rule.” Mockingbird Dental Grp., P.C. v.
Carnegie, No. 4:15-CV-404-A, 2015 WL 4231746, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2015)
(citing Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990)). The supporting sworn
Case 3:25-cv-01690-E-BW Document 16 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID <pageID>

-6-
statement must state (1) “the location of the defendant’s usual place of business or
usual place of abode or other place where the defendant can probably be found” and
(2) “specifically the facts showing that” traditional service under Rule 106(a) has
been attempted “at the location named in such affidavit but has not been successful.”
Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b).
III. ANALYSIS
Hunsinger requests authorization to effect service on Defendant Colas through
three methods (each using a private process server). First, he seeks to serve Colas by
mailing a summons and complaint to his address. Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(a)(2), a
plaintiff may serve a citation by “mailing to the defendant by registered or certified
mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the citation and the petition.” Because
Hunsinger may serve Colas in this manner through Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) without
Court authorization, his motion is denied in this respect.
Second, Hunsinger requests to serve Colas using the email address
ludcheelcolas@gmail.com. As noted above, Hunsinger has provided a document
showing that a person by Colas’s name and listing the same address maintains a
current license and uses the email address ludcheelcolas@gmail.com. (Dkt. No. 15
at ECF pp. 15-16.) Hunsinger also points to a Florida statute requiring a licensee to
notify the relevant department overseeing insurance practices within 30 days of any
change to his residence or business address or contact information, including email
address. See Fl. Stat. § 626.551. The Court concludes that Hunsinger’s showing,
through an affidavit that complies with Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b), establishes a
Case 3:25-cv-01690-E-BW Document 16 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID <pageID>

-7-
reasonable likelihood that the email address belongs to Colas and is being used by
him. Therefore, serving Colas in this manner will be reasonably effective in giving
Colas actual notice of this lawsuit. The Court grants Hunsinger’s motion to serve
Colas using this gmail.com email address.
Third, Hunsinger seeks to serve Colas using the email address
advisor@realtorsmedicalbenefits.com. Hunsinger’s basis for believing that service to
that address will be reasonably effective in giving Colas actual notice of the lawsuit is
based on a document produced in response to the subpoena served on a
telecommunications company to identify the person or entity that made certain of
the calls that are alleged to have violated the TCPA. According to that document,
the account was held by someone using the name Ludcheel Colas and listing
realtorsmedicalbenefits.com as their email address. That document, however, shows
that the account holder made a payment in August 2024. (Dkt. No. 15 at ECF p.13.)
It does not support finding that Colas has recently used or is currently using this
email address such that service in this manner is reasonably likely to give Colas
actual notice of the lawsuit. Hunsinger provides nothing to suggest that Colas has
recently used this email address, so his motion is denied as to this respect.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion
for Substitute Service (Dkt. No. 15) on Defendant Ludcheel Harley Colas. Plaintiff
may serve a summons, a copy of the amended complaint, and a copy of this
Case 3:25-cv-01690-E-BW Document 16 Filed 03/02/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID <pageID>

-8-
Memorandum Opinion and Order, to Defendant Ludcheel Harley Colas by sending
an email to ludcheelcolas@gmail.com.
SO ORDERED on March 2, 2026.
__________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01690-E-BW Document 16 Filed 03/02/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID <pageID>