Alder Holdings LLC v. Gilles
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 5 Motion for Service of Process Upon Edriss Gilles. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 3/26/2024. (mh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ELECTRONIC SERVICE UPON EDRISS
GILLES
(DOC. NO. 5)
ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah limited
liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:23-cv-00841
EDRISS GILLES, an individual,
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Defendant.
On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff Alder Holdings, LLC (a security company) filed
this action against Defendant Edriss Gilles, alleging Mr. Gilles works for a competitor of
Alder and has made false or misleading statements to Alder customers in order to lure
customers to switch to another security company. 1 Alder has now filed a motion for
alternative service, seeking leave to serve the complaint on Mr. Gilles via email, text
message, and mail. 2 Because Alder has shown Mr. Gilles cannot be located despite
diligent efforts and its proposed methods of service are reasonably calculated to apprise
Mr. Gilles of the action, Alder’s motion for alternative service is granted.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service on an
individual may be completed 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
1
(Compl. ¶¶ 13–14, 18–32.)
2
(Ex Parte Mot. for Electronic Serv. Upon Edriss Gilles (“Mot.”), Doc. No. 5.)
1
where service is made.” 3 Because Alder filed this action in the District of Utah, Utah law
applies.
As relevant here, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure permit service of an
individual by “delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual
personally, or by leaving them at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode
with a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there.”4 But “[i]f the identity or
whereabouts of the person to be served are unknown and cannot be ascertained
through reasonable diligence . . . or if there is good cause to believe that the person to
be served is avoiding service, the party seeking service may file a motion to allow
service by some other means.” 5 The motion must include “[a]n affidavit or declaration
supporting the motion [setting] forth the efforts made to identify, locate, and serve the
party.” 6 The method of service must be “reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise the named parties of the action.”7
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
4
Utah R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1)(A).
5
Utah R. Civ. P. 4(d)(5)(A).
6
Id.
7
Utah R. Civ. P. 4(d)(5)(B).
2
ANALYSIS
As explained below, Alder has demonstrated diligent efforts to locate and serve
Mr. Gilles, and its proposed methods of service are reasonably calculated to apprise Mr.
Gilles of this action.
I.
Efforts to locate and serve Mr. Gilles
Alder states that it initially obtained Mr. Gilles’s contact information through his
solicitations of Alder’s customers. 8 Specifically, Mr. Gilles provided his name (which
Alder notes is a unique name) and a phone number when interacting with Alder’s
customers. 9 Using this name and phone number, Alder performed a skip trace search,
which returned two possible physical addresses—each located in Miami, Florida—and
one email address. 10 Alder attempted to serve Mr. Gilles at the two physical addresses,
but Mr. Gilles could not be found at either. 11 At the first physical address, a woman
answered the door and stated she had moved into the house five months earlier, and
she had never heard of Mr. Gilles. 12 The second physical address apparently did not
exist. 13 Alder’s counsel called the phone number and sent a message to the email
8
(Mot. 2, Doc. No. 5.)
9
(Id.)
(Id.) A LinkedIn profile under Mr. Gilles’ name also lists the competitor company as
his employer and indicates he is located in the Miami area. (See Ex. A to Mot., LinkedIn
Profile, Doc. No. 5-1.)
10
11
(Id. at 2–3.)
12
(See Ex. B to Mot., Return of Non-Serv., Doc. No. 5-1.)
13
(See Ex. C to Mot., Return of Non-Serv., Doc. No. 5-1.)
3
address, and while both appear to still be in service, no one responded to the call or
email. 14
Alder has demonstrated its attempts to serve Mr. Gilles were reasonably diligent.
It performed a skip trace based on a phone number and name Mr. Gilles himself
provided, and attempted to serve Mr. Gilles through every means of contact the skip
trace found, including attempting service at two physical addresses, a phone number,
and an email address. Such attempts are reasonably diligent under the circumstances.
II.
Methods of service
Alder proposes to serve Mr. Gilles via email, mail, and text. 15 More specifically,
Alder proposes emailing service documents to Mr. Gilles at the email address provided
by the skip trace search, mailing the documents to the physical addresses provided by
the skip trace search, and sending the documents via text message to the phone
number Mr. Gilles provided to Alder’s customers. 16 Alder contends service by email is
appropriate becase the email was identified by the skip trace search. 17 Alder also
states service by mail is appropriate ”because it appears that [Mr.] Gilles was located at
the Miami address approximately six months ago and mail forwarding may be available
(or the postal service may return the mail with a new address for [Mr.] Gilles if mail
14
(See Mot. 3, Doc. No. 5; Decl. of Jason R. Hull ¶ 4, Doc. No. 7.)
15
(Mot. 4, Doc. No. 5.)
16
(Id. at 4–5.)
17
(Id.)
4
forwarding has ended).” 18 Finally, Alder argues service by text message is approrpiate
because Mr. Gilles provided the phone number to Alder’s customers. 19
Where Mr. Gilles provided the name and phone number himself, and the skip
trace based on that name and phone number linked the physical and email addresses
to Mr. Gilles, Alder’s proposed means of service are reasonably calculated to apprise
Mr. Gilles of this action. Because Mr. Gilles has not responded to any communications
sent to the phone number or email address, Alder will be required to send three emails
and three text messages per week for two consecutive weeks.
CONCLUSION
Because Alder has diligently attempted to locate and serve Mr. Gilles, and
Alder’s proposed methods of service are reasonably calculated to apprise Mr. Gilles of
this action, Alder’s motion 20 is granted. The court orders as follows:
1.
Alder may serve Edriss Gilles by doing each of the following:
a. mailing a summons, the complaint, and a copy of this order to the two
Miami addresses provided by the skip trace search. If the recipient or
post office provides a forwarding address, Alder must attempt to
physically serve that address as generally required under the Utah
Rules of Civil Procedure. If physical service fails, Alder must mail the
documents to the forwarding address.
18
(Id. at 5.)
19
(Id. at 4.)
20
(Doc. No. 5.)
5
b. emailing the same documents to Mr. Gilles’s email address provided
by the skip trace search, three times per week for two consecutive
weeks, not more often than once every other day (unless a reply is
received acknowledging receipt).
c. sending the same documents via text message to Mr. Gilles’s phone
number listed in the motion, three times per week for two consecutive
weeks, not more often than once every other day (unless a reply is
received acknowledging receipt).
2.
Service shall be deemed complete upon completion of the steps set forth
above. Alder shall file proof of compliance with this order.
DATED this 26th day of March, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Daphne A. Oberg
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?