Opinion ID: 6221657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Service of GangPeng

Text: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), a party may be served by “following state law for serving a summons.” In this case, Texas law applies and permits service by personal service or certified mail. Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(a). But Rule 106 also authorizes a court to order substituted methods of service. Only after service by one of the two methods provided in Rule 106(a) fails, may a court, upon motion supported by proper affidavit, authorize substitute service. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298, 298–99 (Tex. 1993). Upon motion of the plaintiff with a sworn statement listing the location a defendant can be found, and the facts of the attempted, yet unsuccessful service, a court may authorize service “in any other manner, including electronically by social media, email, or other technology, that . . . evidence shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of suit.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b)(2). “[S]ubstitute service is not authorized . . . without an affidavit which meets the requirements of the rule demonstrating the necessity for other than personal service.” Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990). Viahart complied with this rule. After Viahart obtained GangPeng’s address from the online marketplace, it attempted personal service at that address. The process server was unsuccessful because he discovered that GangPeng did not reside at the address or anywhere nearby. Viahart’s motion attached the required affidavit pointing to the address provided by the online marketplace as the location GangPeng could probably be found. Viahart also attached an unexecuted summons and proof of service affidavit describing the process server’s attempt to personally serve GangPeng at the given address pursuant to Rule 106(a)(1). This satisfies Rule 106(b), and substitute service was permitted. See Costley, 868 S.W.2d at 299 (“Upon receipt of an 5 Case: 21-40166 Document: 00516201716 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/14/2022 No. 21-40166 affidavit satisfying Rule 106(b), the trial court may authorize substituted service . . . .” (footnote omitted)). We also disagree with GangPeng’s contention that Rule 106(b) requires multiple failed attempts at service before substitute service can be authorized. The rule itself does not require a specific number of attempts. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b). GangPeng points to no authority, and we find none, explicitly stating that multiple failed attempts are required before authorizing substitute service. GangPeng also makes no argument that a second, third, or fourth attempt would have resulted in GangPeng being personally served. Because Rule 106(b) does not require multiple failed attempts, Viahart complied with the rule. Service was proper. See Costley, 868 S.W.2d at 299.