Reported / Citable
Background
The SEC sued Imer Gomez and three other defendants in July 2025, alleging that Gomez solicited clients to open investment accounts he promised to manage but instead misappropriated their funds. The other defendants entered default, while Gomez remained unserved.
Over approximately a year, the SEC’s process server attempted service at numerous San Antonio addresses, including residences associated with Gomez’s relatives, without success. An investigation in Mexico also failed to locate him. In January 2026, the SEC emailed the summons and complaint to an iCloud address Gomez had used in November 2024 to communicate with the agency about the underlying enforcement matter; the message was not returned as undeliverable, but Gomez did not respond.
Because the SEC could not determine whether Gomez was in Texas or Mexico, it sought permission to serve him by email under the rules governing domestic and foreign service.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the SEC’s motion for alternative service. If Gomez was in the United States, the SEC’s sworn declarations strictly satisfied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b) by identifying locations where he could probably be found and describing unsuccessful attempts at personal service. The court concluded that emailing the documents to the address Gomez had recently used would be reasonably effective to provide notice.
The court also held that email service was permissible if Gomez was in Mexico. Because his address was unknown, the Hague Convention did not apply, and email service was not prohibited by an international agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Given Gomez’s prior use of the email address, the absence of an undeliverable notice, and evidence that he might visit his mother’s residence, the authorized methods were reasonably calculated to provide notice and therefore satisfied due process.
The SEC was ordered to both email the summons, complaint, and order to Gomez and leave copies with someone over sixteen at his mother’s San Antonio residence. If no such person was available, the SEC could post the documents on the front door. Service had to be completed by July 29, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A verified account of diligent but unsuccessful personal-service efforts supported substituted service under Texas Rule 106(b).
- An email address recently used by the defendant, coupled with a test message that did not bounce back, supported the finding that email service would likely provide notice.
- The Hague Convention did not restrict service because Gomez’s foreign address was unknown.
- The court required two complementary methods—email and delivery or posting at Gomez’s mother’s residence—to increase the likelihood of actual notice.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how litigants can obtain alternative service when a defendant’s location is uncertain and extensive efforts at conventional service have failed. Evidence connecting the defendant to an active email account and a physical location can establish that electronic and substituted service are reasonably calculated to provide notice.
It also clarifies that when a person’s address abroad is unknown, the Hague Convention does not apply, allowing a federal court to authorize a method such as email under Rule 4(f)(3), provided that the method satisfies due process and is not prohibited by another international agreement.