Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00501-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 

Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual), an 

Iowa corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. Prefab, Inc., an Arizona corporation; 

and Harry O. Woody, an unmarried man, 

Defendants.

No. CV 12-501-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval to Serve Certain 

Defendants by Publication (Doc. 9). The Court now rules on the Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court on March 9, 2012, asserting breach of 

contract and fraud claims against Defendants. Plaintiff now seeks an order allowing it to 

serve Defendants by publication pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and 

Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(n). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides, in relevant part that, “[u]nless 

federal law provides otherwise, an individual . . . 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” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1). 

 Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(n) provides that service by publication may 

Case 2:12-cv-00501-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

be permitted “[w]here the person to be served is one whose residence is unknown to the 

party seeking service but whose last known address was within the state, or has avoided 

service of process, and service by publication is the best means practicable under the 

circumstances for providing notice of the institution of the action.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 

4.1(n). “The decision whether to pursue personal service or service by publication is that 

of the plaintiff, not the court [and] [b]ecause the court does not preauthorize service by 

publication, the determination whether publication constitutes adequate service is made 

later in the case.” Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, 222 P.3d 920, 923 n. 4 (Ariz. Ct. 

App. 2010) (citing Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(n) and Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899, 904 (Ariz. 

Ct. App. 2007)). Because Plaintiff need not seek Court approval to effect service by 

publication, Plaintiff’s motion for authorization of service by publication is denied.1

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval to Serve Certain 

Defendants by Publication (Doc. 9) is denied as set forth herein. 

 Dated this 20th day of June, 2012. 

 

1

 Once service by publication is completed, as authorized by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(n), and Plaintiff files (1) an affidavit showing the manner and dates 

of publication and mailing and the circumstances warranting the utilization of the 

procedure as authorized by 4.1(n) and (2) a printed copy of the publication(s), such affidavit will serve as prima facie evidence of compliance with 4.1(n). See Ariz. R. Civ. 

P. 4.1(n). 

Case 2:12-cv-00501-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 2