Ortiz v. Circle K Stores Incorporated 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
Emma Cuadros Ortiz,
Plaintiff,
v.
Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02014-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Emma Cuadros Ortiz’s Second Motion for
Alternative Service. (Doc. 22).
On November 12, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to alternatively serve
Defendants Raymond and Carolina Gallardo (“the Gallardos”) with the amended complaint
at 342 W. Corona Rd., Tucson, AZ 85756 (“the Corona address”). (Doc. 20). Plaintiff’s
pending motion alleges she received “new information” suggesting that the Gallardos now
reside at 218 E. Date Ave., Casa Grande, AZ 85122 (“the E. Date address”). Plaintiff,
moving under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Federal Rule”) 4(e)(1), asks the Court to
authorize an alternative means of service upon Defendants at the E. Date address “out of
an abundance of caution and to ensure that Defendants are fully afforded their rights to due
process.” (Doc. 22 at 2). Plaintiff also requests, under Federal Rule 4(m), that the Court
extend the deadline to serve Defendants to “thirty (30) days after the Court enters an order
granting th[e] motion.” (Doc. 22 at 3).
Federal Rule 4(e)(1) allows summons to be served on an individual in a manner that
Case 2:25-cv-02014-JAT Document 23 Filed 12/12/25 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
follows “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). Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Arizona Rule”) 4.1(k) provides
procedures for “alternative means of service.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k). Under this rule, “[i]f
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.” Id. 4.1(k)(1). The standard for
impracticability under Arizona Rule 4.1(k) “requires something less than the ‘due
diligence’ showing required before service by publication may be utilized,” and
“something less than a complete inability to serve the defendant because the defendant’s
current address is unknown or the defendant completely has avoided service of process.”
Blair v. Burgener, 245 P.3d 898, 903–04 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). In the context of Arizona
Rule 4.1(k), “impracticable” simply means that the traditional means of service have
proven to be “extremely difficult or inconvenient.” Id. at 903. If the impracticability
requirement is satisfied and alternative service of process is appropriate, any proposed
alternative method of service must comport with constitutional notions of due process. Rio
Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege that traditional methods of service have proven
to be impracticable. Indeed, Plaintiff has not alleged any attempt to serve the Gallardos at
the E. Date address—let alone enough attempts to rise to the level of impracticability
required to justify alternative service. Given this failure, Plaintiff’s second request for
alternative service will be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Alternative Service (part of
Doc. 22) is denied without prejudice.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 2:25-cv-02014-JAT Document 23 Filed 12/12/25 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to
alternatively serve the Gallardo Defendants (part of Doc. 22) is denied as moot.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-02014-JAT Document 23 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 3