Background
Raghuveera Mallidi sued Roberto Valero for negligence arising from a November 2021 car accident, filing the complaint one day before the two-year limitations period expired. Mallidi did not serve Valero within Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)’s initial 90-day deadline, but obtained several extensions, ultimately through May 20, 2024.
In February 2024, Mallidi’s process server made one unsuccessful attempt at the address Valero had given law enforcement, sent one Spanish-language text message to a phone number supplied by a resident there, and conducted a skip trace that produced eight possible addresses. A clerical error led an independent contractor to attempt service at the wrong address. Mallidi then published notice in the Arizona Business Gazette. The superior court later granted leave for publication after the fact, but dismissed the case for insufficient service and denied reconsideration and Rule 60(b) relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Based on the record before the superior court when it dismissed the case, Mallidi had made only two physical service attempts and sent one text message before using publication. He also had not mailed the summons and complaint to the addresses identified through the skip trace. Those facts supported the superior court’s finding that Mallidi had not exercised the reasonable diligence Rule 4.1(l) requires before service by publication.
The court also held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration or Rule 60(b) relief based on declarations submitted only after dismissal. Even if those declarations showed that Mallidi had authorized an attempt at the recommended address, that clarification would not change the independently inadequate extent of his service efforts. Nor was the court required to grant a further Rule 4(i) extension sua sponte, particularly where Mallidi never formally moved for one and the record did not show that Valero had evaded service.
Key Takeaways
- Service by publication requires reasonably diligent, pointed efforts to locate and personally serve the defendant.
- Actual notice of a lawsuit does not cure defective service or establish personal jurisdiction.
- Post-dismissal evidence does not warrant Rule 60(b) relief when it would not change the result.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that plaintiffs facing an expired limitations period must still comply with service rules. A small number of unsuccessful attempts, without pursuing available addresses or other reasonable leads, will not support publication service or compel additional time to serve.