A federal court in Puerto Rico has ruled that nonparties cannot escape TCPA subpoenas by challenging the method used to serve a motion to enforce them.
The decision came in Starling v. Navlan PR, LLC, Misc. No. 26-129 (FAB), 2026 WL 2070277, decided by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on July 17, 2026.
The court held that a motion to enforce a subpoena is governed by Rule 5, not Rule 4, meaning mailing it to respondents and their lawyers was sufficient to constitute proper service.
The court also confirmed that jurisdiction over a nonparty in subpoena proceedings derives from service of the subpoena itself, not from service of any subsequent enforcement motion.
The underlying case involves Kimberly Starling, who sued Allstate Insurance Company in the Northern District of Illinois over an unwanted robocall she alleged she received.
Starling sought documents from Navlan PR, LLC and a deposition from its principal, Ryan Blackman, neither of whom was a party to the original litigation.
After personal service proved impossible, the Illinois court authorised Starling to serve the subpoenas by mail and email, yet both Navlan and Blackman missed their compliance deadlines.
When Starling moved to enforce in Puerto Rico, where compliance was required, her process server encountered further obstruction, including a gate guard at Blackman’s Dorado home with standing orders to turn process servers away.
Navlan’s registered agent address led to an accounting firm that had never heard of the company, and Blackman’s own lawyers told the process server they had no information about his whereabouts.
Respondents then entered a limited appearance to argue that mailing the enforcement motion failed to satisfy Rule 4 and that the court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over them.
The court rejected both arguments, noting that Rule 4 governs the initial summons, while everything filed afterward, including a motion to enforce a subpoena, travels under Rule 5.
Under Rule 5, service is complete the moment the document is placed in the mail to the person’s last known address, making Starling’s approach entirely proper.
On the jurisdiction question, the court acknowledged that a ruling from Gucci Am. v. Bank of China, 768 F.3d 122, 141 (2d Cir. 2014), confirmed that personal jurisdiction over a nonparty is required before compelling compliance under Rule 45.
However, the court found that respondents had targeted the wrong document, since jurisdiction in subpoena proceedings arises from service of the subpoena itself under Rule 45, not from service of the enforcement motion.
A growing number of courts have approved alternative service methods under Rule 45 where those methods are reasonably calculated to give timely actual notice, as confirmed in cases including Bloom v. Campbell and Ott v. City of Milwaukee.
The most damaging fact for respondents was that they had already responded to the subpoenas, sending over some documents and emailing objections, which fatally undermined any claim that they had not received proper notice.
Legal commentators at Troutman Amin, LLP noted that anyone chasing discovery from an uncooperative vendor or lead generator should seek alternative service approval from the issuing court and then move to enforce in the district where compliance is required.
The ruling sends a clear message that blocking process servers and maintaining a dead registered agent address will not make a subpoena disappear, but will instead help build the record needed to justify alternative service.