Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company v. Miranda et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance
Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
Luis Miranda, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04251-PHX-DWL
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve Defendant Edwin
Wayne Jung (“Jung”) via alternative means. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons that follow, the
motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint. (Doc. 1.) The complaint
arises from an alleged incident in October 2023 in which Jung was bitten by a dog while
walking near an auto shop owned and operated by Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. ¶¶ 8-14.)
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it owes no duty to indemnify or defend its insured. (Id. at
11-12.)
On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff obtained a summons issued to Jung. (Doc. 7.)
Between November 23, 2025 and December 15, 2025, a process server hired by
Plaintiff made nine unsuccessful attempts to serve Jung at Jung’s last known residential
address, which is located on E. Riviera Drive in Tempe, Arizona (“the Jung Residence”).
(Doc. 12 at 2 ¶¶ 3-5.) During one service attempt, the process server observed “a sign in
Case 2:25-cv-04251-DWL Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the yard that says ‘Jung.’” (Id. at 7.) During the final service attempt, the process server
“spoke with a ‘John Doe,’ of high school age, who when asked for Edwin Wayne Jung, all
he stated is ‘no’ and closed the door. . . . There is a sign on the yard from Hamilton High
School Swim & Dive says Tay ‘Boogie’ Jung.” (Id.at 8.)
On December 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for leave to serve by
alternative means. (Doc. 12.)
DISCUSSION
Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an individual (with
exceptions not relevant here) may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
(1) 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; or
(2) doing any of the following:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the
individual personally;
(B) 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
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service of process.
Under Rule 4.1(d) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, an individual may be
served within Arizona using the same methods outlined in Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal
Rules.
Rule 4.1(k) of the Arizona Rules provides for alternative means of service: “If a
party shows that the means of service provided in Rule 4.1(c) through Rule 4.1(j) are
impracticable, the court may—on motion and without notice to the person to be served—
order that service may be accomplished in another manner,” in which case “the serving
party must make a reasonable effort to provide the person being served with actual notice
of the action’s commencement” and must, at a minimum, “mail the summons, the pleading
Case 2:25-cv-04251-DWL Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
being served, and any court order authorizing an alternative means of service to the last-
known business or residential address of the person being served.”
Arizona’s Rule 4.1(k) requires a showing of impracticability. Impracticability in
this context requires “something less than a complete inability to serve the defendant” and
even “something less than the ‘due diligence’ showing required before service by
publication may be utilized.” Blair v. Burgener, 245 P.3d 898, 901, 903-04 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2010). In the context of Rule 4.1(k), “impracticable” simply means that the traditional
means of service have proved to be “extremely difficult or inconvenient.” Id. at 903.
The Court finds that the traditional means of service have proved to be
impracticable. Plaintiff’s proposed alternative means of service—“(1) affixing a copy of
the Summons and Complaint to the front door of the Jung Residence; (2) USPS first-class
mail to the Jung Residence; and (3) USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to the
Jung Residence” (Doc. 12 at 3)—constitute “a reasonable effort to provide the person being
served with actual notice of the action’s commencement,” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k)(2), with
the caveat that Plaintiff must also include a copy of this order in each packet of materials.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 12) is granted.
2. Service on Jung may be accomplished by (1) affixing a copy of the
Summons, the Complaint, and this order to the front door of the Jung Residence; (2) USPS
first-class mail of the same documents to the Jung Residence; and (3) USPS Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested of the same documents to the Jung Residence.
Dated this 7th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04251-DWL Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3