Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04820/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04820-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark Infringement

---

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

SFM LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Best Roast Coffee LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-04820-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion for alternative service, which requests

leave to serve Julia Yim by publication. (Doc. 76). So long as the party seeking to 

accomplish service by publication complies with the procedures set forth in Arizona Rule 

of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4.2(f), however, leave of court is unnecessary. See Ruffino v. 

Lokosky, 425 P.3d 1108, 1110 ¶ 5 n.1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Ariz. R. Civ. P. 

4.1(k)(3)); see also Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P., 222 P.3d 920, 923 ¶ 8 n.4 

(Ariz. Ct. App. 2010); Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899, 904 ¶¶ 21–24 (Ariz. Ct. App. 

2007); Shirley J. McAuliffe, 2 Arizona Practice – Civil Trial Practice § 12:6 (Nov. 2019 

update) (“There is no requirement . . . that there be a prior order authorizing service by 

publication, and securing one serves no meaningful purpose.”). Whether service by 

publication complied with due process and applicable procedural rules is evaluated later.

The Court notes that, among other requirements, Rule 4.2(f) allows for service by 

publication when (1) the serving party, despite reasonable diligence, has not been able to 

ascertain the correct address of the party to be served or (2) the party to be served has 
- 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

intentionally avoided service. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(f)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). In addition, to comply 

with both Rule 4.2(f) and due process, service by publication must still be the best means 

practicable to provide notice to the interested party. See Ruffino, 425 P.3d at 1113 ¶¶ 16, 

18 (“[W]hen more practicable channels of communication are available, we hold a serving 

party should first use those channels to attempt to confirm the other party’s address, or 

move for alternative service, before service by publication can be considered the best 

means practicable . . . .”). See generally Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5(c)(2). These prerequisites must

be shown in the affidavit required by Rule 4.2(f)(4). Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc., 798 

P.2d 395, 400 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion for alternative service, (Doc. 76), as 

premature.

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2020.