Reported / Citable
Background
OrthoMed Staffing PLLC filed its complaint on June 15, 2026, against Angelina Jordan Astar, Michael Astar, and A Star Entertainment, LLC. The LLC had been served, but the two individual defendants had not.
OrthoMed’s process server made six documented attempts over roughly three weeks to personally serve Michael Astar at a Los Angeles residence. OrthoMed also used public-record and skip-trace searches to locate Angelina Jordan Astar but did not find a reliable current residence. It moved on the September 14 Rule 4(m) deadline for more time and substituted service.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion and found good cause to extend the deadline for serving both individual defendants by 60 days, through November 15, 2026. OrthoMed had acted in good faith, retained a licensed process server, documented repeated efforts to serve Michael Astar, investigated Angelina Jordan Astar’s location, and filed before the service deadline; the extension would not prejudice the defendants.
The court also authorized substituted service. Michael Astar may be served at the identified Los Angeles residence by leaving the papers with a person older than 16, affixing them to the main door, mailing them by first-class and certified mail, or emailing them to contact@angelinajordanofficial.com. Angelina Jordan Astar may be served by email at either of two addresses associated with her official website or through her public Instagram account, @angelinajordana.
Key Takeaways
- Documented, repeated personal-service attempts and timely motion practice supported a Rule 4(m) extension for good cause.
- Texas substituted-service rules can permit electronic service when the evidence connects the accounts to the defendant and indicates recent use.
- The order authorizes service methods only; it does not resolve OrthoMed’s underlying claims.
Why It Matters
The decision shows the evidence a Northern District of Texas court may require before allowing alternative service: a verified account of unsuccessful conventional service, corroboration of the proposed address or electronic channel, and a showing that the method is reasonably likely to provide notice.
For defendants whose current physical addresses cannot be reliably identified, the order illustrates that official websites and recently active social-media accounts may support targeted electronic service under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b).