[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6245539,"mediaKeyId","3225217-9f655bde4923a4845d5c4391f953e058","parentId",3225217,"title","Court hears competing arguments on service by publication and jurisdiction in Arroyo case","audioSeconds",1013,"startMs",1002010,"endMs",2015845,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3225217-9f655bde4923a4845d5c4391f953e058&start=1002&end=2015","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3225217-9f655bde4923a4845d5c4391f953e058/thumbnail_1002010.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6245539/Texas/Court-hears-competing-arguments-on-service-by-publication-and-jurisdiction-in-Arroyo-case","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6245539-02cbb2b1af253888d9bbdd92a01ae3d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700638&Signature=XzjnHRZP0ljN6~DXjrHeaMgSl~4B7NiGnCSsSiyrazBmToI7ktl6z5y3roq07b7bNN4D-T8Fw7TlTCyc8ETT5L7ejPbB9-A6a1UdnV3LLLomET2iAC28AQiG7OxEKCwVxgWvh7yh1CEw1iIBMheGGIgDyhtxI3mCg7-zWRwNWLxYInU~sVUyXf-QJO~z0EZEWtmmRoGTobAMhTysiMTJE5qaeLZcoaUYfkL6DPRs3TpM0uLmrwuduxqPPZ6yKARGtKgEGqnGwRitw8pn51~mOpr2hZmFLF-MPQq7Tqi8Xszl242v2Kwx0Y85u-z-UZmCDeScRoCYDoQXPrrSGtZ7eQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-08T04:44:09Z","article","On May 7, 2025, Clayton County State Court heard contested argument in Bridal Arroyo v. Ho over the plaintiff’s motion for service by publication and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of service. John Clays, counsel for the plaintiff, asked the court to allow service by publication after multiple search-and-service efforts; defense counsel (Matthew Hurst) opposed, arguing plaintiff had not shown the required diligence and that publication would not supply personal jurisdiction for the claims asserted.

Plaintiff’s counsel described multiple efforts to locate the defendant, including attempted personal service, private process servers, utility searches and skip-trace reports dating back to 2024. Counsel said substitute service was effected at 1521 Valley Green Court, Conley, Ga., on Aug. 13, 2024, and that plaintiff continued periodic searches into 2025, citing Avagana v. Avagana and Melton v. Johnson as authorities permitting publication when a diligent search has been shown.

Defense counsel cited Reynolds v. Reynolds (2015) and argued the plaintiff’s evidence fell short: the court’s record included an undated utility search and a single attempt in January (after the statute of limitations ran, as defense counsel contended). Defense counsel also pointed out that service by publication “does not convey personal jurisdiction except in very limited circumstances,” and argued that, even if publication were allowed, the plaintiff might not obtain personal jurisdiction over the absent defendant or any recovery from insurers not before the court. The defense asked the court to dismiss for lack of service.

Plaintiff’s counsel replied that substitute service under OCGA and the affidavit of service dated Aug. 13, 2024, supported the court’s exercise of jurisdiction or, at minimum, justified publication because of continued, documented efforts to locate the defendant. Counsel said he would file and had filed briefs and exhibits showing periodic searches and process-server affidavits.

Judge Hayward heard extended oral argument, questioned counsel about efforts made before the statute of limitations ran and about whether sheriff service was attempted, and said she would review the filings and relevant case law before issuing an order. The court did not rule at the hearing and invited counsel to submit proposed orders and supplementary filings. No dismissal or grant of publication was announced at the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Clayton State 304's Personal Meeting Room","oneSentenceSummary","In Bridal Arroyo v. Ho, Clayton County State Court heard extended argument May 7 over whether plaintiffs exercised due diligence to permit service by publication and whether publication would supply personal jurisdiction; the judge took the matter under advisement.","taxTitle","Clayton County State Court 304, Texas Courts, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66308,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6245545,"Judge confirms garnishment to be satisfied; plaintiff to provide satisfaction of judgment",344,541500,886112,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3225217-9f655bde4923a4845d5c4391f953e058&start=541&end=886","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3225217-9f655bde4923a4845d5c4391f953e058/thumbnail_541500.jpg","/articles/6245545/Texas/Judge-confirms-garnishment-to-be-satisfied-plaintiff-to-provide-satisfaction-of-judgment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6245545-681500d1e9e7589b0e12d3adf732bc27/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700638&Signature=PEsaRv8qfh-5IhCuBy7owDl7QmdWrOuFd-D79g4ooW~nsEazH7NPdm1W8gv7fZeadyJogJ8A6mVCx2poqmxxbO~vnI6qONGIkHVn9fy5GhVYCm6o5C7cq6Ze4~uBO1iE2f4z7wOPVCZl4MZCXYFr2qk3mO1getSShImHulkQrcsdqPeq~4FVE1u3lvPD~K2iWlWDhwtj5NHIHFDXxg~4q1avk8y7MFoNygAbR21yTWwTU2FjOqf0uwyiviLLq4W87VDWwj~b41ZmgMUWV70sf3ADsJ3V6JEN5Kft9dxn0Bo~yPFFwn0l8YNFisN8Fk6RwjhKWZn2Qm-vX22uPc0AHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the May 7, 2025 Clayton County State Court civil calendar, the court addressed a garnishment action filed by Midland Credit Management against Diana Jenkins, with Mission Financial Services also named. The court confirmed the garnishment arose from a DeKalb County default judgment and discussed the mechanics of registry-of-court payments and satisfaction-of-judgment documentation.

Judge Tammy Long Hayward asked Jenkins whether she intended to challenge the judgment or to pay it; Jenkins said she intended to pay the debt in full and that payroll garnishments began around March 15, 2025 and would finish on May 15, 2025. Defense/plaintiff counsel James Whitten (representing Midland Credit Management) confirmed Midland would file a satisfaction of judgment and provide Jenkins copies when the funds were disbursed from the court registry.

Court staff explained that once an employer remits withheld funds to the court registry, the clerk will disperse them to the plaintiff’s counsel and then Midland will provide a satisfaction of judgment (and any related FEMA/FIFA satisfaction, as applicable). Midland’s counsel agreed to send Jenkins copies of the satisfaction when available, and Jenkins provided contact information for delivery.

Judge Hayward said the traverse/challenge to the garnishment would be dismissed (the court characterized the plaintiff’s traverse as resolved by Jenkins’s stated intent and the pending payment) and confirmed that Midland would satisfy the judgment when the registry disbursed funds. The court directed Midland’s counsel to provide Jenkins with a satisfaction of judgment and any supporting documentation after the funds clear and be mindful of communicating with the clerk and the defendant about timing.","In Midland Credit Management v. Diana Jenkins, heard May 7 in Clayton County State Court, the court confirmed the garnishment was proceeding and that Jenkins will satisfy the underlying judgment; Midland's counsel agreed to provide satisfaction documents for Jenkins when funds clear.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6245550,"Judge takes under advisement sanctions and summary-judgment motions in Clayton County hit-and-run case",4791,360215,5151679,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3225217-9f655bde4923a4845d5c4391f953e058&start=360&end=5151","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3225217-9f655bde4923a4845d5c4391f953e058/thumbnail_360215.jpg","/articles/6245550/Texas/Judge-takes-under-advisement-sanctions-and-summary-judgment-motions-in-Clayton-County-hit-and-run-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6245550-4bbab11564f3f57f7b0e1470e5e47032/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700638&Signature=n~5deWMSYTdbK5L4nq3cW5tgszYsXh28eZMbyI1wr5h9~6Ila5lvTQxcEpMJHEv~qbE4UDmPmW6v6kaRxvjgKAce1GoqM4ihkYg1SF3616I9rdTFB3Ovt0C2MVeCzbTGTNVCdg5zEAvcGTQyVaWUbsynSXyJmkiLvwQifXSW6P82xtj5ynKtVUreS-xk-J2Ty2tDgV4jl9kIk2QZ~bTxWe9YY3-BzzcBSLzvFdlkf-u7GjlwRTkvcKDg2cVvPAH6rrVJbAZlYXCjXpgzXv6EbbvKPPBboA5L1uwXt9wyhlMbeHyAc6AA1EyNE95wM8JVd43EP4VOHIuyPBCwOqBeZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Clayton County State Court judge on May 7, 2025, heard competing motions in Marquise Duron Ferguson v. Richard L. Jones et al, a personal-injury suit arising from a reported Oct. 27, 2023 hit-and-run. Judge Tammy Long Hayward presided over oral argument on the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and motion for summary judgment and a separate motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Richard Jones; the court said it would review briefing and issue orders.

The motions matter because the plaintiff asks the court to strike Richard Jones’s answer and deposition testimony, alleging his sworn testimony conflicts with cellular records the plaintiff obtained from Verizon Wireless. If the court grants sanctions or summary judgment, liability could be resolved before trial.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Christopher Ferguson, told the court that the crash occurred about 9:34 p.m. Oct. 27, 2023, in Henry County and that Henry County 911 and police reports identify a silver Nissan Altima as the at-fault vehicle. Ferguson said plaintiff took depositions of Richard and Matthew Jones in December 2024 and then sought nonparty phone records from Verizon to corroborate testimony. According to the plaintiff’s presentation, Verizon produced records for Oct. 27, 2023, between 9:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. that show several billable connected calls to and from Richard Jones’s line at approximately 9:15 p.m., 9:20 p.m. and 9:32 p.m., which the plaintiff says contradicts Jones’s deposition testimony that he “was in a dead sleep when Matthew called.”

Plaintiff argued those discrepancies justify sanctions under OCGA § 9-11-37(d) and asked the court to strike Jones’s answer and deposition testimony and to grant summary judgment as to liability for negligence, negligence per se, punitive damages and fees. Defense counsel John Welsh disputed that the call-history entries prove deception, saying the timing and geographic billing labels do not establish that Jones was driving the car at the crash time and characterizing the evidence as creating genuine issues of material fact.

Counsel also explained that defendant Matthew Jones asserted his Fifth Amendment right and declined to testify; defense counsel said they would submit a supplemental opposition because new counsel had recently appeared. The parties debated the scope and meaning of the Verizon records (billing/geographic labels versus precise location data) and whether the records reflect answered calls or voicemail, with both sides citing different explanatory notes in the records.

Judge Hayward heard oral argument from both sides, asked clarifying questions about the timeline and the discovery history (depositions taken December 2024; timing of nonparty subpoenas and records), and said she would review the record and issue consolidated written orders addressing the motion for sanctions, both summary-judgment motions and related discovery disputes. She directed counsel that proposed orders could be submitted to the court.

The court did not rule at the hearing. No formal findings or rulings were announced; the judge said she would issue orders after review of the filings.","At a May 7 civil calendar hearing in Clayton County State Court, Judge Tammy Long Hayward heard plaintiff motions seeking sanctions and summary judgment against defendant Richard Jones in a 2023 hit-and-run case; the court took the motions under advisement after extended argument and said it would issue written orders.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court hears competing arguments on service by publication and jurisdiction in Arroyo case

Judge confirms garnishment to be satisfied; plaintiff to provide satisfaction of judgment

Judge takes under advisement sanctions and summary-judgment motions in Clayton County hit-and-run case