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

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.