12/03/2021 — CV2021095063 CEREMELLO, DONALD FRANK 12/03/2021 HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court *** Electronically Filed *** 12/06/2021 8:00 AM SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2021-095063 12/03/2021 Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 1 CLERK OF THE COURT HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY K. Tiero Deputy BELL WEST RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC ASHLEY N MOSCARELLO v. DONALD FRANK CEREMELLO DONALD FRANK CEREMELLO 17544 N 167TH DR SURPRISE AZ 85374 JUDGE COFFEY MINUTE ENTRY Plaintiff has requested service by alternative means pursuant to Rule 4.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4.1 (k) provides as follows: Alternative Means of Service. (1) Generally. If a party shows that the means of service provided in Rule 4.1(c) through Rule 4.1(j) are impracticable, the court may--on motion and without notice to the person to be served-- order that service may be accomplished in another manner. (2) Notice and Mailing. If the court allows an alternative means of service, the serving party must make a reasonable effort to provide the person being served with actual notice of the action's commencement. In any event, the serving party must mail the summons, the pleading being served, and any court order authorizing an alternative means of service to the last-known business or residential address of the person being served. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2021-095063 12/03/2021 Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 2 (3) Service by Publication. A party may serve by publication only if the requirements of Rule 4.1(l), 4.1(m), 4.2(f), or 4.2(g) are met and the procedures provided in those rules are followed. Whether traditional service is “impractical,” defined as “extremely difficult or inconvenient” is a fact specific inquiry. See Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 245 P.3d 898 (App. 2010). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that service is impractical in this case. Only five attempts were made to serve Defendant in an approximately one week period. Multiple additional unsuccessful attempts at varying times before the Court will authorize alternative service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s request for service by alternative means, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion if further efforts at personal service are unsuccessful.