Service by publication is hard to get!
- Peter Schneider
- 2 days ago
- 5 min read
Serving a lawsuit on a telemarketer can be harder than building the case itself as a recent TCPA plaintiff is experiencing. The case is Reo v. Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00290, 2026 LX 101943 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2026).
As usual all "facts" cited in this article are from the filings and allegations are assumed to be true for the sake of an educational article. Readers should follow the case to find the ultimate facts and resolution of the case. Mr. Rio has received hundreds of unwanted telephone calls from a Manasseh Jordan Ministries, which is comprised of Mr. Jordan himself and several other people and entities involved in making the calls.
Between February 13, 2021, and September 19, 2023, Reo received 351 phone calls from Manasseh Jordan Ministries (also known as Kingdom Ministries Church, Inc. and Bullion Fitness, Inc.), a company owned by Manasseh Jordan. Each call consisted of a pre-recorded artificial voice that contained "religious messages, spiritual jargon, and attempts to solicit 'donations'" with the promise that Reo will receive various gifts depending on the amount donated . . . Manasseh Jordan Ministries does business with a "shell company" called MJ Ministries Spreading the Gospel, Inc. ("MJ Ministries") that is operated by Sledge and Jordan.
Mr. Rio had a good idea of who was behind the calls, but didn't exactly know where to find them. Or if he did, he didn't attempt to serve them (it isn't clear why he didn't serve Sledge or Manasseh Jordan Ministries.
On May 15, 2025, the Court entered an Order allowing Reo ten days in which to show service was perfected or "demonstrate good cause why service was not perfected" in accordance with the Federal Rules. On May 20, 2025, Reo filed a Brief in Response to Order to Show Cause Regarding Service Status ("Brief"), attaching documentation from process servers showing service was unexecuted on Manasseh Jordan and Jordan. Reo attempted service on these Defendants in March and April 2025. He never attempted service on Sledge or Manasseh Jordan Ministries.
Mr. Rio filed a motion with the court asking to serve Manasseh Jordan, Aaron Jordan, Steven Sledge, and Manasseh Jordan Ministries by publication in Georgia and Florida. The motion was denied but the court educated us all on the legal standard to get service by publication or by registered mail.
Typically after a lawsuit is filed the plaintiff has 90 days to serve each defendant. The deadline can be extended but it requires showing good cause.
In his Brief, Reo outlines his attempts at serving each Defendant. After several unsuccessful attempts at serving Jordan and MJ Ministries at a Georgia address, Reo claims "[i]t is apparent that the Defendants go to great lengths to avoid being easily served process." In support, he argues the address listed on a corporate filing for MJ Ministries is false because the process server discovered it was an apartment and the occupant "has never heard of the business entity." To Reo, this means Defendants "have taken active measures to undermine being served process." Reo does not provide proof he attempted service on Manasseh Jordan Ministries or Sledge.
The court pointed out it was Mr. Rio's burden to show the defendants were evading service, and inability to find a party, without more, is insufficient to draw that conclusion.
Reo provided no proof Manasseh Jordan or Manasseh Jordan Ministries are evading service. He has also made no attempt to serve Sledge or Manasseh Jordan Ministries and therefore cannot claim they have evaded any of his attempts at service.
Service by publication, at least in federal court, is overrated because FRCP 4(e) and (h) don't allow for it. In federal court any method of service allowed by the state the court sits in is also valid service (or the state the defendant is at home in) but as Mr. Rio experienced, many states also don't allow for service by publication in their civil rules.
Reo's Motion requests service by publication in Georgia on Sledge and Jordan; service by publication in Florida on Manasseh Jordan and Manasseh Jordan Ministries; and service by certified mail in New York on Manasseh Jordan and Manasseh Jordan Ministries. Each of Reo's requests fail under state law and the Federal Rules. For individuals and corporations, the Federal Rules do not permit service by publication and certified mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Ohio law also does not permit service by publication for Reo's claims. See Ohio R.C. § 2703.14 (outlining cases where service by publication is permitted). While service by certified mail is authorized in Ohio, Reo requested to personally send "certified letters with tracking, but no signature requirement." This method of certified mail service is not permitted in Ohio.
Florida and Georgia also didn't allow for service by publication or registered mail for the facts of this case.
In Georgia, Reo has not followed the procedures required under Georgia law to permit service by publication on Sledge and Jordan. "Under Georgia law, a court may grant an order for service by publication when the person upon whom service is to be made has departed from the state; cannot, after due diligence, be found within the state; or conceals himself to avoid service."
But this is where Mr. Rio's lack of effort came back to bite him.
[Mr. Rio] has also made no attempts to serve Sledge. Reo has not submitted an affidavit detailing how either Sledge or Jordan have departed from Georgia, cannot be found within the state, or detailing his due diligence in attempting to locate them. His attempts to locate Sledge and Jordan are minimal and only include a single attempt to serve Jordan at an address associated with MJ Ministries.
The court cited a case declining service by publication even where the plaintiff had attempted service, but only three times and in the span of the same week, and another where the plaintiff simply didn't give the court enough information to convince the court he had put enough effort into service.
The court also discussed alternative service under New York law but the conclusions were the same, it takes state law + showing an exhaustive effort before a court is going to allow alternative service. Not even trying service or just trying one go of service is almost certainly not going to get the job done. A wise plaintiff is going to have to have a state law alternative service option and then dedicate some $$$ into turning over every rock and then detailing for the court those efforts before service by publication is going to be on the table.
One can't just assume it will be granted. Finding people can be hard, so looking to see were they were served before, running skip traces to find personal addresses, finding email or mailing addresses they acknowledge using should be done prior to filing and starting that 90 day clock.
In this specific example where there are hundreds of calls and a significant amount of damages, a credit card donation might be in order to be able to follow the paper trail, or (assuming the phone numbers are not spoofed) a subpoena to the phone company. Tedious but sometimes that is all you have.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve encountered similar issues with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not constitute legal advice. If you're considering suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments