Jemma Hartranft v. Gregory Hartranft

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Plaintiff’s renewed motion for alternative service because she had not shown that traditional service was impracticable or established good cause for failing to timely serve Defendant. The Court granted a final extension to file proof of service by April 16, 2026, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff did not demonstrate that traditional service was impracticable because her showing consisted of only two service attempts and limited supporting detail, despite the opportunity to renew her motion.
2. Plaintiff's renewed motion did not establish good cause for her failure to timely serve Defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated that traditional service was impracticable so as to warrant court-authorized alternative service.
2. Whether Plaintiff established good cause for failing to timely serve Defendant.

Disposition

other