DECISION AND ORDER Green Mountain Electric Supply, Inc. (“plaintiff”) requests (1) leave to effectuate service on defendant Power Manufacturing, LLC (“defendant”) by e-mail, phone, or fax; (2) an extension of time to complete service of process; and (3) such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. See Dkt. Nos. 7, 7-2 at 10. Plaintiff contends that such alternative methods of service are required because plaintiff’s previous attempts to serve defendant by normal means has been impracticable. See id. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part. Plaintiff is granted leave to serve defendant by e-mail and is granted an additional thirty days to effectuate this alternative service. The motion is otherwise denied. I. Background Plaintiff filed this action against defendant on August 28, 2024, asserting claims under New York state law for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, account stated, and quantum meruit. See Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.). Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated in Florida with its principal place of business at 10111 Houston Oaks Drive, Houston, Texas 77064. See Compl. at 3; see also Dkt. No. 7-2 (Feenan decl.) at
4-7 (citing to filings with the Florida Secretary of State, Dkt. No. 7-3, and Texas Office of the Comptroller, Dkt. Nos. 7-4 and 7-5, listing the Houston Oaks location as defendant’s address). According to defendant’s registration with the Florida Secretary of State, the LLC has one authorized person as a manager-member, Randolph H. Smith, whose address is listed as the Houston Oaks location. See Dkt. No. 7-3 at 2-3. On September 12, 2024, plaintiff’s process server attempted to serve defendant at the Houston Oaks address but noted the building was vacant. See Dkt. No. 7-8. The process server called defendant’s phone number, retrieved from defendant’s website, and spoke with a person who indicated that defendant had moved from the Houston Oaks location, but that the process server could call again on September 16 to arrange a meeting. See id. The process server called the same phone number on September 16 and 17, but he received no answer, and no one arrived at the Houston Oaks location to receive the summons. See id. The process server also attempted to serve defendant at 6747 Signat Drive, Houston, Texas 77041, based on plaintiff’s discovery of this address on defendant’s website. See Feenan decl. at 16-18. However, the process server noted another business occupied the Signant Drive location, and that defendant was unknown to the business. See Dkt. No. 7-8. The process server also attempted to personally serve Randolph Smith at two addresses uncovered during plaintiff’s electronic search; however, the process server determined that Smith did not reside at either location. See Feenan decl. at
