Balderas v. Real Estate Law Center, PC et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough granting 19 Amended Motion to Permit Alternative Service. (cm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel.,
HECTOR H. BALDERAS, Attorney General of
Civ. No. 17-00251 KBM/SCY
REAL ESTATE LAW CENTER, P.C., et al.,
ORDER GRANTING AMENDED MOTION TO PERMIT ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Alternative
Service Upon Defendant Erickson Davis (Doc. 19). The Court denied Plaintiff’s first Motion to
Permit Alternative Service due to Plaintiff’s failure to include the proposed notice pursuant to
Rule 1-004(K) NMRA. Doc. 18. Plaintiff then refiled the Motion with the proposed notice.
Having reviewed the Amended Motion, the Court finds that it is well-taken and should be
As noted in the Court’s first Order (Doc. 18), there is no express provision for service by
publication under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Rule 4(e)(1) provides that a
defendant 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 or where service is
made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). New Mexico Rule 1-004(F) requires personal service of process
upon an individual and specifies various methods in which personal service may be
accomplished. See Rule 1-004(F) NMRA. If personal service cannot reasonably be accomplished
in accordance with Rule 1-004(F), then constructive service is permitted under Rule 1-004(J),
Upon motion, without notice, and showing by affidavit that service cannot
reasonably be made as provided by this rule, the court may order service by any
method or combination of methods, including publication, that is reasonably
calculated under all of the circumstances to apprise the defendant of the existence
and pendency of the action and afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and
Rule 1-004(J) NMRA.
The New Mexico Supreme Court has previously held that service by publication may be
appropriate “in cases where the defendant, being aware that civil action may be instituted against
him, attempts to conceal himself to avoid service of process.” Clark v. LeBlanc, 1979-NMSC034, ¶ 7, 593 P.2d 1075.
This exception is based on the fact that “in concealing himself, the defendant, by
his own action, renders personal service or process impossible. This action
constitutes waiver of notice of the proceedings sought to be avoided….To allow a
person to escape his civil obligation by purposefully hiding himself would be to
Cowen, et al. v. Angelico, et al., Civ. No. 09-0483 JCH/LFG, Doc. 49 at 4. Recently, the New
Mexico Supreme Court reiterated that “the exercise of diligence and good faith to locate a
defendant are implicit prerequisites to effect service of process by publication.” T.H. McElvain
Oil & Gas Limited Partnership v. Group I: Benson-Montin-Greer Drilling Corp., Inc., 2017NMSC-004, ¶ 32, 388 P.3d 240.
Generally, a plaintiff will able to establish that it exercised diligence and good faith in
attempting to locate a particular defendant by complying with Rule 1-004. See T.H. McElvain,
2017-NMSC-004, ¶ 32 (noting that Rule 1-004 effectuates the requirements of due process).
Accordingly, service must be “attempted through the hierarchy of mechanisms set out under
[Rule 1-004(F)]” and that a plaintiff must demonstrate “that this hierarchy was followed in
detail, although the attempts were unsuccessful.” See Soto v. Vill. of Milan Police Dep’t, Civ.
No. 10-0043 WJ/ACT, Doc. 51 (Sept. 17, 2010). Thus, a plaintiff must first deliver a copy of a
summons and complaint to the individual personally, or by mail or commercial courier as
provided in Rule 1-004(E)(3). Rule 1-004(F)(1) NMRA. If either of these means are
unsuccessful, a plaintiff may “deliver a copy of the process to some person residing at the usual
place of abode of the defendant who is over the age of fifteen (15) years and mailing by first
class mail to the defendant at the defendant’s last known mailing address a copy of the process.”
Rule 1-004(F)(2). Finally, if no other means is successful, then
service of process may be made by delivering a copy of the process at the actual
place of business or employment of the defendant to the person apparently in
charge thereof and by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first class
mail to the defendant at the defendant’s last known mailing address and at the
defendant’s actual place of business or employment.
Rule 1-004(F)(3) NMRA.
Plaintiff represents that he has taken a number of unsuccessful steps to serve Defendant
Davis. First, Plaintiff states that it made three unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendant Davis
personally at the business address on file with California Secretary of State. Doc. 19 at 1.
Second, Plaintiff represents that it made four unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendant Davis at
his place of abode. Doc. 19 at 2. Plaintiff next mailed a request for waiver of service, including
the complaint and summons, to Defendant Davis at this address. Doc. 17 at 2. Plaintiff
additionally emailed these documents to Defendant Davis. Doc. 17 at 2. Following these
unsuccessful attempts, Plaintiff located a new business address for Defendant Davis and
attempted both in-person service and service by mail to no avail. Doc. 17-1 at 4. Indeed, an
employee of the company denied any knowledge of Defendant Davis despite Defendant Davis
being the registered CEO of the company and representations by the owner of the building that
Defendant Davis received mail at that location. Doc. 17-1 at 4. Given the above, the Court finds
that Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of Rule 1-004(F). Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve Defendant Davis by publication
consistent with Rule 1-004(K). As it appears that Defendant Davis is a resident of California, the
Court further orders that notice of pendency of the action be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county of which Defendant Davis most recently resided.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?