GS Holistic, LLC v. AAR Management LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
GS HOLISTIC, LLC,
Plaintiff.
V.
AAR MANAGEMENT LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-cv-00360
OPINION AND ORDER1
Pending 	before 	me 	is 	a 	motion 	for 	substituted 	service 	filed 	by
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs. 	See 	Dkt. 78. Defendants request an order
allowing 	substituted 	service 	of 	process 	on 	Third-Party 	Defendants 	Smiley
Distributors LLC and Toro Imports, LLC. Having considered the motion, the
record, and the applicable law, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied
in part.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) permits a party to be served by
“following state law for serving a summons.” Texas law requires personal service.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(a). If attempts at personal service fail, Rule 106(b) permits
substituted service upon a motion supported by a proper affidavit. See State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Tex. 1993). The affidavit must
“list[] any location where the defendant can probably be found and stat[e]
specifically the facts showing that service has been attempted.” Tex. R. Civ.
P. 106(b). Texas law permits substituted service only where the plaintiff can
demonstrate “strict compliance” with Rule 106(b). Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d
833, 836 (Tex. 1990).
1 “A motion for substituted service is a nondispositive pretrial matter on which a
magistrate judge may rule directly.” Ruffin v. Remy Real Estate Inv. Inc, No. 3:25-cv-
00399, 2026 WL 948512, at *8 n.13 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2026).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:24-cv-00360 Document 80 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Defendants have twice attempted to serve Smiley’s registered agent, Ahmed
Alimuhammad, and they have attempted to serve Toro’s registered agent, Aziz
Panjwani, 	four 	times. 	See 	Dkt. 	78 	at 	2–3. 	All 	service 	attempts 	have 	been
unsuccessful. Defendants assert that they have exercised due diligence in serving
Alimuhammad and Panjwani and that serving them “has proven impracticable.”
Id. at 4. Thus, Defendants argue that “substitute service should be authorized.” Id.
As for Alimuhammad (and thus Smiley), Defendants request an order
authorizing substituted service by leaving a copy of the Second Amended Third-
Party Complaint and related documents with any person over the age of 16 years
at 11526 Harry Hines Boulevard, Suite 101, Dallas, Texas 75229, or at 3413 De Vinci
Drive, Plano, Texas 75074. The problem with this request is that Defendants fail to
offer any probative evidence showing that either address is a location where
Alimuhammad “can probably be found.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b).
The process server who tried to serve Alimuhammad at 11526 Harry Hines
Boulevard was told by someone at that location that that Alimuhammad “never
comes into the business office anymore.” Dkt. 78-1 at 2. With respect to 3413 De
Vinci Drive, a female resident informed the process server that Alimuhammad
“does not reside” there and she does not know Alimuhammad. Dkt. 78-3 at 2. This
evidence suggests that substituted service at either location would not reasonably
provide Alimuhammad notice of the suit. For that reason, I will not authorize
Defendants to serve Smiley via substituted service at the proffered locations. 2 See
Gryder v. Cook, No. 02-23-00434-CV, 2024 WL 4562493, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Oct. 24, 2024, no pet.) (refusing to allow substituted service when plaintiff
2 Although Defendants have been unable to serve Smiley’s registered agent to date, they
are not limited to utilizing substituted methods of service available under Rule 106(b).
Defendants could elect to serve Smiley by serving the Texas Secretary of State. See Tex.
Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 5.251 (“The secretary of state is an agent of an entity for purposes
of service of process . . . [if] the registered agent of the entity cannot with reasonable
diligence be found at the registered office of the entity.”).
Case 3:24-cv-00360 Document 80 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
“failed to provide evidence of probative value from which it could be inferred that
the location was one where [defendant] could probably have been found.”).
Turning to Panjwani (and thus Toro), Defendants ask me to authorize
substituted service at 522 Newington Lane, Sugar Land, Texas 77479, the same
address Defendants tried to serve Panjwani on four separate occasions. A process
server who tried to serve Panjwani says in an affidavit that two people at 522
Newington Lane, Sugar Land, Texas 77479, confirmed that Panjwani lives there.
See Dkt. 78-4 at 1. Moreover, on the third service attempt, Panjwani’s wife
indicated that Panjwani “would be home tomorrow.” Id. On the fourth service
attempt, Panjwani’s wife further stated that Panjwani was “not home” at that time.
Id. Although Panjwani may be evading service, the process server’s affidavit is
probative evidence that 522 Newington Lane is an address where Panjwani
probably can be found. Accordingly, I will authorize Defendants to serve Toro via
substituted service.
For these reasons, Defendants’ motion for substituted service on Third-
Party Defendants Smiley Distributors LLC and Toro Imports, LLC (Dkt. 78) is
granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(e)(1), 	4(h)(1), 	and 	Texas Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	106(b), 	service may be
effectuated on Toro by leaving a true copy of the summons, this order, and
Defendants’ Second Amended Third-Party Complaint with any person over the age
of 16 years at 522 Newington Lane, Sugar Land, Texas 77479. Based on the record
before me, I will not authorize substituted service on Smiley.
SIGNED this 	day of June 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-00360 Document 80 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3