John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) v. Spearman et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-02883-CNS-STV
JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.),
Plaintiff,
v.
AMY SPEARMAN, and
ROBERT BUNCH,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
Entered by Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Allowing
Substitute Service of Process (the “Motion”). 	[#17] 	The Motion seeks leave to serve
Defendant Spearman (“Spearman”) through her father and co-defendant, Robert Bunch
(“Bunch”), and through her former attorney, Gary Fielder. [Id.] This Court has carefully
considered the Motion, the entire case file, and the applicable case law, and has
determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the disposition of the Motion.
For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED as modified herein.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants on September 12, 2025 to recoup
long-term care benefits that it was induced to pay as a result of a scheme by Defendants
to defraud Plaintiff through misrepresentations and submission of false claims under two
separate insurance policies. [#1] Plaintiff successfully served Bunch on September 17,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 9

2
2025. [#7] The Clerk of Court filed an Entry of Default as to Bunch on October 31, 2025.
[#12]
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff claims it has been diligently attempting to serve
Spearman with no success. [#17 at 2] 	Specifically, Plaintiff ran background checks using
tools such as PeopleMap, Accurint, People Search, and publicly available records; and
hired a private investigator to identify addresses associated with Spearman. [Id. at 2-3;
#17-1 at ¶¶ 3-6] 	Through a process server, Plaintiff attempted personal service on
Spearman 	no 	less 	than 	nine 	times 	at 	three 	different 	addresses 	associated 	with
Spearman. [#17 at 2-3] Between September 17, 2025 and September 24, 2025, process
servers made four unsuccessful attempts to serve her at 9507 East Mississippi Avenue,
Apartment 206, in Denver,1 encountering issues including lack of access, occupants
stating they did not know her, and unanswered doors. [#17 at 6-7] Additional attempts
on October 3, October 4, October 7, and October 8 at 9922 East Colorado Avenue,
Apartment 204, in Aurora2 were unsuccessful due to no response [#17 at 7], and an
attempt on October 15 at 277 Troy Street in Aurora failed when a resident said they did
not know Spearman [id.].
In addition to these attempts at personal service, Plaintiff has made other attempts
to serve Spearman. 	On October 20, counsel mailed Rule 4(d) waiver-of-service
packages to three addresses—9507 East Mississippi Ave., 9922 East Colorado Ave., and
3094 Carson Street3—but Spearman never responded. [#17 at 7] On October 28, John
1 This address is Spearman ‘s last known address. [#17-1 at ¶ 3]
2 Plaintiff alleges the East Colorado Avenue address is associated with Spearman’s
husband, Mark Spearman, found through PeopleMap, Accurint, and People Search.
[#17-1 at ¶ 5]
3 This is an address Plaintiff listed in relation to her nursing license. [#17-1 at ¶ 4]
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 9

3
Hancock retained an investigator to conduct sixteen hours of stakeout surveillance at both
the Colorado Avenue and 227 Troy Street addresses, but these efforts also failed to locate
Spearman. [Id. at 11] Further surveillance conducted on November 3 and November 5
at the Troy Street address failed when individuals at the residence denied knowing her
(including one identifying herself as Charlene Spearman), and surveillance on November
9 and November 10 at the Colorado Avenue address resulted in no contact with any
occupants. [Id. at 8-9] Plaintiff also attempted to contact Spearman directly by emailing
the 	address 	she 	had 	repeatedly 	used 	and 	personally 	confirmed 	during 	her
communications with the company, and by calling three phone numbers she provided
during the underlying insurance claim and that appeared in a People Search report, but
she did not respond. [Id. at 11]
Counsel further contacted Attorney Gary Fielder, who had represented Spearman
during pre-litigation discussions. [Id. at 3, 11] Fielder’s office confirmed that Spearman
knew about the lawsuit and had asked him to defend her, but Fielder declined because
she could not pay for his services. [Id.]
On November 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for substitute service.
[#17] 	In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave of this Court to serve Defendant Spearman
through her father and co-defendant Robert Bunch, and through her former attorney, Gary
Fielder. [Id.]
II. 	DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs service of a summons and complaint.
Pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1), an individual within a judicial district of the United States may
be served by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 9

4
general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is
made.” 	Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) authorizes substitute service. 	When the
party attempting service “is unable to accomplish service . . . the party may file a motion,
supported by an affidavit of the person attempting service, for an order for substituted
service.” Such a motion shall state:
(1) The efforts made to obtain personal service and the reason that personal
service could not be obtained, (2) the identity of the person to whom the
party wishes to deliver the process, and (3) the address, or last known
address of the workplace and residence, if known, of the party upon whom
service is to be effected.
Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f). If the court is satisfied that due diligence has been used to attempt
personal service, that further attempts to obtain personal service would be to no avail,
and that the person to whom delivery of the process is directed is appropriate under the
circumstances and reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party upon whom
service is to be effective, it shall: “(1) authorize delivery to be made to the person deemed
appropriate for service, and (2) order the process to be mailed to the address(es) of the
party to be served by substituted service, as set forth in the motion, on or before the date
of delivery.” Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f). For substitute service to be valid, it must comport with
due process by being calculated “to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the
action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” 	Mullane v. Cent.
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
Here, the Court is satisfied that due diligence has been used to attempt personal
service and that further attempts to obtain timely personal service would be to no avail.
As outlined above, Plaintiffs have made concerted efforts to serve Spearman but have
been unsuccessful. 	Accordingly, the Court must determine the availability of substitute
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 9

5
methods of service, beginning with Plaintiff’s request to serve Spearman via her father
and co-defendant, Robert Bunch.
Plaintiffs allege that substituted service on Bunch is appropriate in this case
because Spearman is Bunch’s caregiver and frequently visits him. 	[#17 at 3] 	Plaintiff
cites 	the 	Complaint 	to 	support 	this 	statement, 	which 	states 	that 	through 	various
interviews, Plaintiff determined that Spearman was Bunch’s sole caregiver and visited
him an average of three times a week on a flexible schedule during a period from May 1,
2022 to July 31, 2024. 	[Id., see also #1 at ¶¶ 60, 62] 	Yet, Plaintiff provides no factual
allegations that such visits continue presently or that her caregiving role requires her to
be at the residence at predictable times such that service at that location would be
reasonably calculated to reach her. The Court cannot infer a current, reliable connection
from allegations concerning a past period.
Further, to the extent Plaintiff suggests that substituted service is proper because
Bunch is Spearman’s father and a served co-defendant in this case, this argument is
unavailing. 	A familial relationship alone does not establish that Bunch is likely to relay
documents to Spearman. Plaintiff has not provided any indication that these individuals
maintain an ongoing relationship, beyond speculation that Spearman learned of the
lawsuit because of Bunch. [#17 at 12 (“The only potential source of her knowledge is her
father and co-defendant Bunch, who was successfully served.”)] Bunch’s own receipt of
service does not demonstrate an ability or inclination to provide Spearman notice.
Indeed, Bunch’s current default status undermines any inference that he would effectively
communicate litigation documents to Spearman. Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 9

6
that service on Bunch would be reasonably calculated to give Spearman actual notice of
this action.
Nonetheless, the Court determines that substituted service on Spearman’s former
attorney, Gary Fielder, is sufficient to effect service on Spearman. 	There are several
examples of when substituted service on a defendant’s current or former attorney is
appropriate to effectuate personal service on the defendant. 	If an attorney is currently
representing a defendant, it is reasonable to infer that the attorney will give actual notice
of service to that defendant, and substituted service on that attorney is therefore
appropriate. 	Leonite Fund I, L.P. v. Hawaii Brewery Dev. Co. Inc., No. 25-cv-01371-
NYW-STV, 2025 WL 2606706, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 9, 2025) (finding substituted service
on Defendant’s attorney proper because of current representation in a related case, which
was reasonably calculated to give Defendant actual notice of the lawsuit); Pogue v.
Brown, No. 25-cv-00285-WJM-STV, 2025 WL 808361, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 13, 2025)
(finding substituted service on Defendant’s arbitration attorney proper where Defendant
knew of Plaintiff’s claims against him and communicated with his attorney about them);
Two Rivers Water & Farming Co. v. Am. 2030 Cap. Ltd., No. 19-cv-01640-CMA-STV,
2019 WL 5535227, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 25, 2019) (citing Contrada, Inc. v. Parsley, No.
1:10-cv-00646-WYD-CBS, 2010 WL 2943428, (D. Colo. July 21, 2010)). 	Substituted
service on a former attorney can also be granted when such service will reasonably
apprise the defendant of the lawsuit. 	80Stees.com, Inc. v. Jersey Nation Pty., Ltd., No.
25-cv-01603-STV, 2025 WL 2391517, at *4-5 (D. Colo. Aug. 18, 2025) (finding substituted
service on Defendant’s former attorneys proper where those attorneys had represented
Defendant in related litigation matters, which led to the filing of the action); Sandia Lab'y
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 9

7
Fed. Credit Union v. Burg, No. 1:24-cv-01443-SKC-STV, 2024 WL 4728025, at *4 (D.
Colo. Nov. 8, 2024) (finding substitute service on Defendant’s former attorney appropriate
because the attorney had represented Defendant in matters related to the underlying
dispute, was reasonably likely to provide Defendant notice of the lawsuit, and the method
comported with due process). 	Indeed, service upon an attorney, who may or may not
have represented the defendant but has had dealings with them, can also be appropriate
if the attorney has already given actual notice of service to the defendant. 	JDK LLC v.
Hodge, No. 15-cv-00494-NYW, 2015 WL 2455504, at *2 (D. Colo. May 22, 2015)
(ordering substituted service on an attorney who had potentially represented defendants
in settlement negotiations relating to the lawsuit and had provided actual notice of the
lawsuit to them).
Here, 	Plaintiff 	asserts 	that 	service 	on 	Attorney 	Gary 	Fielder 	is 	reasonably
calculated to apprise Spearman of this lawsuit, as he previously represented her in pre-
litigation settlement negotiations, was approached to serve as counsel in this lawsuit, but
declined, and confirmed that Spearman was aware of the lawsuit. [##17 at 3, 11; 17-1 at
¶ 12] 	The Court finds that Attorney Gary Fielder’s prior representation of Spearman in
matters closely related to this dispute is sufficient to conclude that service upon him is
likely to provide Spearman with actual notice of this action. The Court has little doubt that
Attorney Fielder will notify Spearman of the present litigation—of which she appears
already aware. 	Thus, service on Attorney Fielder is reasonably calculated to apprise
Spearman of this litigation and thus comports with due process.
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 9

8
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. 	Plaintiff's Motion [#17] is GRANTED as modified herein;
2. 	Plaintiff is authorized to serve Defendant Amy Spearman via her former
attorney, Gary Fielder, at 2325 West 72nd Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80221,
as referenced in the Motion. In addition to the documents required to effectuate
service, Plaintiff shall also include a copy of this Order;
3. 	Service of process shall be effectuated upon Defendant Amy Spearman in
accord with Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f) by sending a copy of the summons, Complaint,
and all other relevant documents, via registered mail with delivery confirmation,
to the following locations on or before the date of delivery of process to Attorney
Gary Fielder:
a. 	Amy Spearman at the last-known residential address as referenced in
the Motion: 9507 East Mississippi Avenue, Apartment 206, Denver,
Colorado 80247; and
b. 	Amy 	Spearman 	at 	the 	residential 	address 	listed 	in 	relation 	to
Spearman’s nursing license as referenced in the Motion: 3094 Carson
Street, Aurora, Colorado 80011;
4. 	Plaintiff’s 	deadline 	to 	serve 	Defendant 	Amy 	Spearman 	is 	extended 	to
December 27, 2025; and
5. 	Plaintiff shall promptly file a status report informing the Court when such service
is accomplished.
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 9

9
DATED: November 26, 2025 	BY THE COURT:
s/Scott T. Varholak
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-02883-CNS-STV Document 20 filed 11/26/25 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 9