Moglia v. Israelsen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
ALEX D. MOGLIA, in his capacity as court-
appointed receiver,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIE R. ISRAELSEN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ORDER AUTHORIZING
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF
PROCESS (DOC. NO. 83)
Case No. 1:25-cv-00086
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
In this receivership action, Alex Moglia, the court-appointed receiver, seeks leave
to serve Alexandria Gomez by email.1 Ms. Gomez is one of several individuals who
allegedly received money Mark Israelsen obtained by fraud.2 Mr. Moglia has been
unable to personally serve Ms. Gomez and now requests leave for alternative service.
Because Mr. Moglia has shown Ms. Gomez cannot be located despite diligent efforts
1 (Second Mot. for Alt. Serv. of Process (Mot.), Doc. No. 83.) Despite its title, this is Mr.
Moglia’s first motion seeking leave to serve Ms. Gomez through alternative service.
2 (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8, 93–95, 115, Doc. No. 1.) This case arises from a separate litigation
after Mr. Israelsen’s death in which East West Bank sued Mr. Israelsen’s companies for
fraud he committed. See East West Bank v. QIT Tech. Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:25-
cv-00105 (D. Utah, filed Feb. 12, 2025). Upon Mr. Israelsen’s death, Mr. Moglia
became president and secretary of those companies at the request of the secured
lenders and investors. (See Order Granting Mot. to Appoint Receiver, Doc. No. 30 in
East West Bank v. QIT Tech. Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:25-cv-00105.) The court
appointed him as receiver in this action “to identify, collect, and preserve the assets of
the Receivership Estate for the benefit of the estate’s creditors.” (Compl. ¶ 5, Doc.
No. 1.)
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 105 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
and the proposed method of service is reasonably calculated to notify Ms. Gomez of
this action, the motion for alternative service is granted.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Mr. Moglia moves for alternative service under Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Rule 4(e)(1) provides that service on an individual may be
completed by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts
of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is
made.”3 Because this action is in the District of Utah, Utah law applies.
As relevant here, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure permit service of an
individual by “delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual
personally, or by leaving them at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode
with a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there.”4 But “[i]f the identity or
whereabouts of the person to be served are unknown and cannot be ascertained
through reasonable diligence . . . or if there is good cause to believe that the person to
be served is avoiding service, the party seeking service may file a motion to allow
service by some other means.”5 The motion must include “[a]n affidavit or declaration
supporting the motion [setting] forth the efforts made to identify, locate, and serve the
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
4 Utah R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1)(A).
5 Utah R. Civ. P. 4(d)(5)(A).
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 105 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
party.”6 The method of service must be “reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise the named parties of the action.”7
ANALYSIS
Mr. Moglia’s motion is granted. Despite diligent efforts to locate and serve Ms.
Gomez, Mr. Moglia has been unable to personally serve her. And he proposes serving
her by email—a method reasonably calculated to notify Ms. Gomez of this action. Each
point is discussed in turn.
First, Mr. Moglia has made diligent efforts to locate and serve Ms. Gomez. In
June 2025, his process server tried to serve her personally at an address in Utah,
without success.8 The process server could not serve Ms. Gomez at the address
because it is a large apartment complex9 and he was unable to find Ms. Gomez’s
apartment number.10 Despite running several different skip traces, the process server
6 Id.
7 Utah R. Civ. P. 4(d)(5)(B).
8 (Ex. A to Mot., Decl. of Daniel Nelson (Nelson Decl.) ¶¶ 3–5, Doc. No. 83-1.) Mr.
Moglia had identified Ms. Gomez’s physical address in emails between her and Mr.
Israelsen. (Id. ¶ 3 (referencing Ex. C to Mot., Doc. No. 83-3 at 3–4 (February 14, 2024
email from Mr. Israelsen to Ms. Gomez and attached wire transfer receipt identifying
Ms. Gomez’s address as “90 East 600 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111”)).)
References to Exhibit C are to the CM/ECF pagination.
9 (Id. ¶¶ 3–4 (referencing Ex. B to Mot., Decl. of Attempts of Travis Reitz (Reitz Decl.) ¶¶
2–3, Doc. No. 83-2).)
10 (Ex. B to Mot., Reitz Decl. ¶ 3, Doc. No. 83-2.)
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 105 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
could not locate Ms. Gomez.11 Because several people with similar names have lived
in the same apartment building, the process server could not identify a new address for
her.12 Similarly, Mr. Moglia tried unsuccessfully to find Ms. Gomez’s apartment number
or to otherwise locate her.13 Additional attempts to trace her through her email and
Cash App (a digital wallet platform) were also unsuccessful.14 Overall, Mr. Moglia has
made reasonably diligent attempts to locate and serve Ms. Gomez.15
Second, Mr. Moglia’s proposed alternative method of serving Ms. Gomez by
email is reasonably calculated to notify her of this action. Mr. Moglia found an email
address for Ms. Gomez in Mr. Israelsen’s records.16 The records show Mr. Israelsen
communicated with Ms. Gomez at this email address for several years before his death,
including as recently as April 2024.17 In addition, Mr. Moglia’s counsel tried to contact
11 (Id. ¶ 4.) Skip tracing involves using various sources of information to locate a
person. See DeMaestri v. Verifacts Inc., No. 11-cv-02430, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
49861, at *14 (D. Colo. Mar. 16, 2012) (unpublished) (defining skip tracing).
12 (Ex. B to Mot., Reitz Decl. ¶ 6, Doc. No. 83-2.)
13 (Ex. A to Mot., Nelson Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, Doc. No. 83-1.)
14 (Id. ¶ 7; Ex. B to Mot., Reitz Decl. ¶¶ 4–5, Doc. No. 83-2.)
15 See, e.g., C504750P LLC v. Baker, 2017 UT App 36, ¶ 10, 397 P.3d 599 (explaining
that plaintiffs “exercise reasonable diligence if they take advantage of readily available
sources of relevant information to locate defendants” (citation omitted)).
16 (Ex. A to Mot., Nelson Decl. ¶¶ 8–9, Doc. No. 83-1 (referencing
alexandriag1023@yahoo.co in Ex. C to Mot., Doc. No. 83-3).)
17 (See Ex. C to Mot., Doc. No. 83-3; see also, e.g., id. at 7.) References to this
document are to the CM/ECF pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 105 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
Ms. Gomez at this email address in November 2025.18 Although she did not respond,
counsel did not receive a notice of non-delivery,19 which suggests the email address is
active. Based on the evidence presented, serving Ms. Gomez by email is reasonably
calculated to notify her of this action.20 Accordingly, the court will allow the alternative
method of service Mr. Moglia proposes.
CONCLUSION
Because Mr. Moglia has shown Ms. Gomez cannot be located despite diligent
efforts and the proposed method of service is reasonably calculated to notify her of this
action, the motion21 is granted. Mr. Moglia may serve Ms. Gomez by sending a
summons, the complaint, and a copy of this order to alexandriag1023@yahoo.com
three times per week for two consecutive weeks, not more often than once every other
day (unless a written response is received from Ms. Gomez acknowledging receipt of
service). Upon doing so, service shall be deemed complete. Mr. Moglia must file proof
18 (Ex. A to Mot., Nelson Decl. ¶ 10, Doc. No. 83-1 (referencing Ex. D to Mot., Doc. No.
83-4).)
19 (Id. ¶ 11.)
20 See Great Bowery v. Best Little Sites, No. 2:21-cv-00567, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
100972, at *8 (D. Utah Mar. 24, 2022) (unpublished) (finding alternative service via
email was proper where the plaintiff offered evidence that the email address belonged
to the defendant and successfully contacted the address); Mattel, Inc. v. AnimeFun
Store, No. 18 Civ. 8824, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77660, at *12–13 (S.D.N.Y. May 1,
2020) (unpublished) (finding email service proper where the plaintiff received receipts
showing the emails were “sent to, delivered to and received by” each defendant).
21 (Doc. No. 83.)
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 105 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
of compliance with this order, and the deadline to serve Ms. Gomez is extended to
April 13, 2026.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Daphne A. Oberg
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 105 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6