Hartranft v. Hartranft

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
Jemma Hartranft,
Plaintiff,
v.
Gregory Hartranft,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-04605-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Alternative Service. (Doc. 8.)
The Court will deny the Motion.
I.
On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Service by Alternative Means.
(Doc. 5.) Plaintiff represented that she attempted service on Defendant at his last known
residential address and his place of business on two occasions, without success. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff asserted that further attempts at personal service under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4.1(d) were impracticable and asked the Court to either deem service waived or
authorize service by alternative means pursuant to Rule 4(e) and Rule 4.1(d) and (k). (Id.
at 1-2.)
On February 25, 2026, this Court denied the Motion without prejudice, finding that
because of a lack of sufficient supporting information, “Plaintiff ha[d] not demonstrated
that service by traditional means [was] impracticable.” (Doc. 6 at 2.) On March 12, 2026,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service of the Complaint or show good cause in
Case 2:25-cv-04605-MTL Document 10 Filed 04/01/26 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
writing for failure to timely serve Defendant and that failure to do so would result in this
action being dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 7.) On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed the
present renewed Motion. (Doc. 8.)
II.
As this Court previously stated, although “impracticable” does not require a
complete inability to serve a defendant—and is a lesser showing than the “due diligence”
required for service by publication—it nevertheless requires more than minimal or
conclusory efforts. See Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 218-19 (App. 2010). The movant
must demonstrate that traditional service has proven “extremely difficult or inconvenient”
despite reasonable efforts. Id. at 218.
In this renewed Motion, Plaintiff has still not demonstrated that service by
traditional means is impracticable. Plaintiff has not made any changes to the text of her
Motion beyond a superficial change to the date. (Docs. 5, 8.) Although Plaintiff has now
provided 	a 	sworn 	affidavit 	explaining 	how 	she 	determined 	Defendant’s 	addresses
(Doc. 8-1), she still reports only two attempts at service at those addresses. (Docs. 5 at ¶ 3;
8 at ¶ 3.) And while this Motion now includes a proof of service from a process server
which includes the time, manner, and circumstance of the attempted service at Defendant’s
place of business, it is limited in its description of those circumstances. (Doc. 8-3.)
In support of her previous assertion that Defendant has actual knowledge of the
lawsuit, Plaintiff has included a sworn affidavit from Reivell Bernardo, an employee of
Plaintiff’s counsel, attesting to her communication with Defendant. (Doc. 8-4.) Bernardo
confirms that Defendant called Plaintiff’s counsel, but her affidavit provides no facts
suggesting that he knew about the lawsuit. (Id.) Bernardo attests that Defendant called after
receiving a letter informing him that he needed to sign for a delivery in order to ask what
the letter was regarding. (Id.) Bernardo told Defendant that she was unable to locate any
matter associated with his name. (Id.) After the call, Bernardo confirmed that litigation had
been initiated against Defendant but had no further communication with him. (Id.)
Nowhere in her affidavit does Bernardo attest that Defendant knew about this lawsuit or
Case 2:25-cv-04605-MTL Document 10 Filed 04/01/26 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
the contents of the letter he received, nor did she inform Defendant regarding either. (Id.)
This sworn affidavit is insufficient to establish that Defendant has actual knowledge of this
lawsuit.
Plaintiff’s renewed Motion fails to cure the deficiencies the Court identified in the
Court’s prior Order. (Doc. 6.) Although Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion for Alternative
Service by the Court’s deadline, that Motion does not establish good cause for Plaintiff’s
failure to timely serve Defendant. Still, in lieu of dismissal, the Court will grant Plaintiff a
final extension to effect service and file proof of service.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative
Service (Doc. 8).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file proof of service no later than
April 16, 2026.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file proof of service or show
good cause by the above deadline, the Clerk of Court must dismiss this action without
prejudice and without further notice on April 17, 2026.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04605-MTL Document 10 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 3