Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Althearidge LLC filed a lawsuit against CipherLab USA, Inc. on April 17, 2026. Althearidge attempted to serve CipherLab through its registered agent, Chin-Jung Wu, at an address in Plano, Texas. However, the process server reported that the property appeared vacant, with an empty interior and a vacancy notice posted. Following this unsuccessful attempt at traditional service, Althearidge filed a Motion for Alternative Service with the court on June 8, 2026, seeking leave to serve CipherLab through other methods.
The Court’s Holding
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Althearidge’s Motion for Alternative Service. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h), which allows service on a corporation as prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) (including state law methods), and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b)(2), the court found that alternative service was warranted given the failed attempt at traditional service.
Specifically, the court authorized two methods of alternative service: (1) serving CipherLab’s U.S. counsel of record in another case, David J. Tsai of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, by both mail and email, and (2) requiring Althearidge to use the Texas Secretary of State’s SOSDirect website to locate a Vice President or President of CipherLab USA, Inc. and attempt personal service upon one of these individuals in their corporate capacity. The court noted that serving a defendant’s United States counsel in another case has been previously found sufficient to satisfy due process.
Key Takeaways
- Plaintiffs can seek alternative methods of service when traditional attempts are unsuccessful, particularly when the registered agent’s location appears vacant.
- Courts may allow alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) and state-specific rules (e.g., Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106).
- Approved alternative methods can include serving counsel in related litigation and requiring efforts to personally serve corporate officers identified through state databases.
- Due process is satisfied when the chosen method of service is reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the action.
Why It Matters
This ruling is significant for plaintiffs encountering difficulties in serving corporate defendants through conventional means, such as when a registered agent’s address is no longer valid or accessible. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that legal proceedings can advance and that defendants receive proper notice, even when faced with evasion or outdated corporate information. The court’s willingness to authorize multiple, distinct methods of alternative service provides a robust pathway for plaintiffs to satisfy due process requirements and move their cases forward, preventing defendants from avoiding litigation solely by failing to maintain current contact information or evade service.