Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00018/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00018-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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 

TD Professional Services,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Truyo Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-22-00018-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service Pursuant to Rule 

4(h)(1)(A), F.R.C.P. (the “Motion”). (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff believes Defendants are evading 

service. (Id. at 2–4.) As a result, Plaintiff seeks alternative means to effectuate service of 

process as permitted under the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 4–5.) 

Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that individuals may 

be served by “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 . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(e)(1). Arizona law enumerates several sufficient methods to serve individuals and 

unincorporated associations. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d), (i). 

(1) delivering a copy of the summons and the pleading to that 

individual personally; (2) leaving a copy of each at that 

individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone 

of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (3) 

delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by 

appointment or by law to receive service of process. 

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 14 Filed 01/27/22 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 

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d). If a moving party shows service by those means is 

“impracticable,” the Court may “order that service [] be accomplished in another 

manner.” Id. 4.1(k)(1). 

“There are no Arizona cases interpreting the meaning of ‘impracticable’ as that 

term is used in [Rule 4.1(k)].” Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 218 (App. 2010) 

(formerly Rule 4.1(m)). In Blair v. Burgener, the Arizona Court of Appeals determined 

the standard of impracticability requires something less than the “due diligence” standard. 

Id. at 218 (“[T]he showing for alternative service requires 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.”). Applying that standard, the court 

deemed personal service in that case to be impracticable because the plaintiff attempted 

service at the defendants’ place of business and residence at various times on five 

different days and the process server visited the defendants’ place of business on seven 

additional days but the defendants were not present. Id. at 219. In addition, the court 

“approvingly cited a New York case on a similar service issue,” in which “the New York 

court concluded that three attempts at service on three different days constituted 

sufficient efforts to warrant alternative means of service.” BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. 

D.R.C. Invests., L.L.C., No. CV-13-1692, 2013 WL 4804482, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 

2013) (citing Blair, 226 Ariz. at 218). 

Plaintiff is seeking this Court’s permission to serve Defendants by three 

alternative means. First by a “server [sending] a copy of the Complaint, Summons, Order 

Authorizing Alternative Service, Corporate Disclosure Statement and Election Regarding 

Magistrate Judge (“the Package”) by certified mail to corporate headquarters for both 

corporations.” (Doc. 13 at 5.) Second by a “server [sending] an additional copy of the 

Package by certified mail to the listed address for the statutory agent, Kailash Somani.” 

(Id.) And third by a “server [sending] an additional copy of the Package by certified mail 

to defense counsel’s law firm address.” (Id.) Plaintiff argues service by an alternative 

method is “clearly justified” because Plaintiff’s efforts “go well beyond the efforts” 

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 14 Filed 01/27/22 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 

necessary to establish impracticability. (Id. at 4.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made the requisite showing to justify alternative 

service. Plaintiff is this case has attempted to serve Defendants nine times on six different 

days including at home, at work, and through their attorneys. (See id. at 2–3.) What is 

more, Defendants have a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint, and appear to be evading service. 

(Id. at 2; see id. at 1–3.) Because the “impracticable” requirement of Rule 4.1(k) is 

satisfied, service by an alternative method is allowed. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service Pursuant to 

Rule 4(h)(1)(A), F.R.C.P. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff shall make service by alternative means on 

both Defendants, as follows: 

1. A server shall send a copy of the Complaint, Summons, Order Authorizing 

Alternative Service, Corporate Disclosure Statement and Election Regarding Magistrate 

Judge by certified mail to corporate headquarters for both corporations; 

2. A server shall send an additional copy of said documents by certified mail 

to the listed address for the statutory agent, Kailash Somani; and 

3. A server shall send an additional copy of said documents by certified mail 

to the law firm of counsel Hani Sayed. 

 The effective date of service shall be five days after the last of these tasks is 

accomplished. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel shall file an affidavit upon 

completion of service specifying the date and details on which alternative service has 

been accomplished. 

 Dated this 27th day of January, 2022. 

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 14 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 3