Aetna Health Management, LLC v. Do Won Oriental Medicine & Acupuncture Clinic,...

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE AETNA HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. C25-2163 TSZ DO WON ORIENTAL MEDICINE & MINUTE ORDER ACUPUNCTURE CLINIC, INC. d/b/a DO WON EAST ASIAN MEDICINE CLINIC; and Ji W. Kim, 13 Defendants.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Plaintiff Aetna Health Management, LLC’s Motion for Alternative Service, docket no. 5, is DEFERRED and RENOTED to December 12, 2025.

17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides that an individual may be served 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.” In Washington, service of process of a corporation may be accomplished by serving its registered agent. RCW 23.95.450(1); RCW 23B.05.050. Service by mail is permissible in Washington if the plaintiff demonstrates that “(1) they made reasonably diligent efforts to personally serve the defendants; (2) service by publication would be justified under Washington law; and (3) the defendants are as likely to receive actual notice from service by mail as they would from service by publication.” Russell v. WADOT Cap., Inc., 2023 WL 3791823, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2023); see RCW 4.28.080(15) (allowing substituted service only after plaintiff has attempted, “with reasonable diligence,” to personally serve the individual or entity). “While reasonable diligence does not require the plaintiff to employ all conceivable means to locate the defendant, it does require the plaintiff to follow up on any information possessed that might reasonably assist in determining the defendant’s whereabouts.” Russell, 2023 WL 3791823, at *2 (quoting Pascua v. Heil, 126 Wn. App. 520, 529, 108 P.3d 1253 (2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Washington permits service by publication when a Washington resident “keeps himself or herself concealed” within the state “to avoid the service of a summons.” RCW 4.28.100(2); see Dodo Int’l, Inc. v. Parker, 2021 WL 662344, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 19, 2021).

6 Aetna made several unsuccessful attempts to serve either defendant. On November 4, 2025, Aetna unsuccessfully attempted service on Defendant Do Won at its principal office address registered with the Washington Secretary of State. Brown Decl. at ⁋ 5 (docket no. 6). A second attempt was made the following day, “at which time the process server was informed by the current occupants that Do Won no longer operated at this address” and that Defendant Ji W. Kim, DO (“Dr. Kim”) had retired. Id. at ⁋ 8. Do Won has not updated its address with the Washington Secretary of State, and its status is listed as “Delinquent.” Id. at ⁋ 9. Dr. Kim is listed as Do Won’s registered agent and the address provided for Dr. Kim is the same address listed for Do Won. Id. at ⁋ 10. Aetna paid to have a search conducted of Dr. Kim and determined his current personal residence is located at 812 S Marine Way, Federal Way, Washington 98003. Id. at ⁋ 12.

A process server attempted service at this address three times (November 10, 13, and 14, 2025), but nobody was at the home. Id. at ⁋ 13.

On this record, the Court cannot find that Defendants are evading service. Aetna has provided the Court with argument that Don Won and Dr. Kim are aware of this lawsuit and evading service, but not evidence. Aetna argues that “[i]mmediately prior to filing suit, Aetna’s undersigned counsel submitted a final demand to Defendants’ counsel,” but “Defendants’ counsel indicated that he was unable to make contact with his clients.” Mot. for Alt. Service at 2 (docket no. 5). This statement is not supported by the declaration, docket no. 6, or its attached exhibits that Aetna filed in support of its motion.

Absent such evidence, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants are evading service or that Defendants were aware that this lawsuit was going to be filed against them. It is also questionable whether Aetna exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to locate and serve Defendants without further evidence of Defendants’ alleged service evasion.

Aetna’s process server visited Dr. Kim’s residence three times in five days but “no one ever answered the door, nor did anyone seem to be home at any time.” Decl. of Attempted Service, Ex. B. to Brown Decl. (docket no. 6-2 at 2 & 4). This evidence alone does not support a finding that Defendants are attempting to evade service, but merely that nobody was present to accept service of process. See Dodo Int’l, 2021 WL 662344 at *2 (granting motion for leave to serve a defendant by mail and concluding that the process server’s affidavit showed that plaintiffs made diligent efforts to serve the defendant who was attempting to evade service of process where (1) a process server attempted to personally serve the defendant six times at his last known address; and (2) the process server declared during some of the service attempts that vehicles registered to the defendant were present and somebody was inside the residence, but nobody answered the door). (2) Plaintiff Aetna is DIRECTED to file on or before December 12, 2025, a supplemental declaration with information concerning its communication with defense counsel being unable to make contact with Defendants and whether the final demand contained any representation that Aetna would be filing a lawsuit, or an explanation for why such information cannot be supplemented. See Mot. for Alt. Service at 2 (docket no. 5). (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record.

Dated this 8th day of December, 2025.

Ravi Subramanian 10 Clerk 11 s/Grant Cogswell Deputy Clerk