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 Motion for Alternative Service (Doc. 5). The Court
will deny the Motion without prejudice.
I.
Plaintiff represents that she attempted service on Defendant at his last known
residential address and his place of business on two occasions, without success. (Doc. 5
at 2.) Plaintiff further represents that Defendant is aware of this action because he contacted
Plaintiff’s counsel after the Complaint was filed. (Id.) Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to
either deem service waived or authorize service by alternative means pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(d) and (k). (Id. at 1.)
II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) permits service on an individual within a
judicial district of the United States by either (1) following state law for service in the state
“where the district court is located or where service is made,” or (2) delivering the
summons and complaint personally, leaving copies at the individual’s dwelling with a
Case 2:25-cv-04605-MTL Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 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
person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, or delivering copies to an
authorized agent.
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(d) mirrors these traditional methods of service.
Rule 4.1(k), however, permits service by alternative means if the movant shows that service
under Rules 4.1(c) through (j) is “impracticable.” If alternative service is authorized, the
serving party must make reasonable efforts to provide actual notice and must mail the
summons, complaint, and authorizing order to the defendant’s last-known residential or
business address. Fed R. Civ. P. 4.1 (k).
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.
III.
On this record, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that service by traditional means is
impracticable. Plaintiff reports only two attempts at service at the purported residential and
business addresses. The Motion does not include a sworn affidavit from a process server
detailing the timing, manner, and circumstances of those attempts. Nor does Plaintiff
explain how she determined that these addresses are Defendant’s current residence and
place of business. The limited attachments provided—consisting of email notices
indicating that a resident did not recognize Defendant’s name and that a neighbor did not
recognize the name—are insufficient to establish impracticability. (Docs. 5-2, 5-3.)
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant has actual knowledge of the lawsuit because he
contacted counsel. However, this representation is unsupported by affidavit or other
evidence. On the present record, the Court cannot determine the nature or extent of that
alleged contact.
While the standard for impracticability is not especially demanding, it requires more
Case 2:25-cv-04605-MTL Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 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
than two unsuccessful attempts and unsupported representations. See, e.g., Joe Hand
Promotions, Inc. v. Vortez LLC, No. CV-25-01821-PHX-DWL, 2025 WL 3496186, at *3
(D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2025) (denying alternative service where the plaintiff failed to sufficiently
explain how it determined the defendant’s address and failed to establish impracticability
despite submitting evidentiary materials).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service
(Doc. 5) is denied without prejudice.
Dated this 25th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04605-MTL Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 3