govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-8_26-cv-02120-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
 : 
FREDRIC BELL 
 : 
 
 v. : Civil Action No. DKC 26-2120 
 
 : 
TERRY ALFONSI, et al. 
 : 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 Presently pending and ready for resolution in this fraud case 
is a motion for alternative service of process filed by Plaintiff 
Fredric Bell. (ECF No. 9). The issues have been briefed, and the 
court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 
105.6. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted. 
I. Background 
Plaintiff filed this action on May 28, 2026, alleging that 
Defendants Terry Alfonsi (“Ms. Alfonsi”) and Kisoly International 
Corp., LLC (“Kisoly International”), fraudulently exploited 
Plaintiff to obtain over $1.7 million. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff is 
an 84-year-old United States Army veteran with Alzheimer’s 
disease. (Id. ¶ 1). The complaint alleges that “Ms. Alfonsi 
represented to [Plaintiff] that he was investing in Kisoly 
International,” a liquor distribution company, (id. ¶ 4), which 
Ms. Alfonsi created and controls, (id. ¶¶ 26-28). The complaint 
alleges that Ms. Alfonsi wrongfully diverted Plaintiff’s assets 

2 
 
for her personal use without providing Plaintiff any benefit or 
legitimate investment. (Id. ¶ 31). Plaintiff has not successfully 
effectuated service on Defendants, despite numerous attempts. 
Plaintiff filed a motion for alternative service on June 15, 2026. 
(ECF No. 9). 
Plaintiff attaches five affidavits of attempted service to 
the instant motion signed by professional servers Jessica Fox (“Ms. 
Fox”) and Jason Bridges (“Mr. Bridges”) under penalty of perjury. 
(ECF Nos. 9-4; 9-5; 9-6; 9-7; 9-8). The attached affidavits show 
that Ms. Fox made two attempts to serve Kisoly International and 
one attempt to serve Ms. Alfonsi at an address in Rockville, 
Maryland.
1 Plaintiff identifies the Rockville address as Ms. 
Alfonsi’s primary address and corporate records indicate it is 
also Kisoly International’s service address. (ECF No. 9, at 2). 
The attached affidavits also show that Mr. Bridges attempted to 
serve Ms. Alfonsi and Kisoly International at a condominium Ms. 
Alfonsi owns in Washington, D.C. (ECF Nos. 9-6; 9-7). 
Ms. Fox first attempted to serve Defendants at the Rockville 
address on June 2, 2026. An individual answered the door but 
stated that Ms. Alfonsi had moved. (ECF Nos. 9-4; 9-5). On June 
 
1 Ms. Alfonsi is the registered service agent for Kisoly 
International. (ECF No. 9, at 2). 

3 
 
3, 2026, Mr. Bridges attempted to serve Defendants at the 
condominium in D.C., but there was no answer. Mr. Bridges spoke 
with Ms. Alfonsi on the telephone on June 4, 2026, and she 
requested that the paperwork be sent to the Rockville address. 
(ECF No. 9-6, at 2). 
On June 8, 2026, Ms. Fox attempted to serve Kisoly 
International at the Rockville address a second time. An 
individual Ms. Fox believed was Ms. Alfonsi answered the door, but 
the individual denied being Ms. Alfonsi. (ECF No. 9-8, at 2). 
Ms. Fox states she believes the resident is Ms. Alfonsi and is 
“lying to dodge service.” (Id.). Plaintiff’s counsel noted that 
he “expects to receive from the process server a similar signed 
affidavit of attempted service on June 8 for Ms. Alfonsi.” (ECF 
No. 9, at 3 n.2). 
II. Analysis 
A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service of Process 
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1) provides that an individual defendant 
may be served pursuant to “state law . . . in the state where the 
district court is located.” Rule 4(h) provides, in pertinent part, 
that “other unincorporated” associations, such as an LLC, can be 
served in the same manner as individual defendants or: 

4 
 
by delivering a copy of the summons and of the 
complaint to an officer, a managing or general 
agent, or any other agent authorized by 
appointment or by law to receive service of 
process and--if the agent is one authorized by 
statute and the statute so requires--by also 
mailing a copy of each to the defendant[.] 
 
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(1). Maryland Rule 2-124(h) states that service 
on an LLC is made upon its registered agent. Under Maryland law, 
service is accomplished in any of the following ways: 
(1) by delivering to the person to be served 
a copy of the summons, complaint, and all 
other papers filed with it; (2) if the person 
to be served is an individual, by leaving a 
copy of the summons, complaint, and all other 
papers filed with it at the individual’s 
dwelling house or usual place of abode with a 
resident of suitable age and discretion; or 
(3) by mailing to the person to be served a 
copy of the summons, complaint, and all other 
papers filed with it by certified mail 
requesting: “Restricted Delivery--show to 
whom, date, address of delivery.” 
 
Md. Rules 2-121(a). When a defendant is evading service, Maryland 
Rule 2-121(b) applies and provides that: 
When proof is made by affidavit that a 
defendant has acted to evade service, the 
court may order that service be made by 
mailing a copy of the summons, complaint, and 
all other papers filed with it to the 
defendant at the defendant’s last known 
residence and delivering a copy of each to a 

5 
 
person of suitable age and discretion at the 
place of business of the defendant. 
 
Md. Rules 2-121(b). Finally, Maryland Rule 2 –121(c) governs 
alternative service of process and provides that: 
When proof is made by affidavit that good 
faith efforts to serve the defendant pursuant 
to section (a) of this Rule have not succeeded 
and that service pursuant to section (b) of 
this Rule is inapplicable or impracticable, 
the court may order any other means of service 
that it deems appropriate in the circumstances 
and reasonably calculated to give actual 
notice. 
 
Md. Rules 2-121(c). 
Plaintiff has provided evidence of multiple unsuccessful 
service attempts. (ECF Nos. 9-4; 9-5; 9-6; 9-7; 9-8). Service 
under Md. Rule 2-121(a) has failed. Md. Rule 2-121(b) then 
requires an affidavit establishing “defendant has acted to evade 
service.” Ms. Fox’s affidavit stating she believes the resident 
of the Rockville address is Ms. Alfonsi and is “lying to dodge 
service” satisfies this requirement. (ECF No. 9-8). Continuing 
to attempt service under Md. Rule 2-121(b) is impracticable for 
several reasons. First, Plaintiff alleges that the place of 
business for Kisoly International is “a warehouse that does not 
appear to be regularly staffed.” (ECF No. 9, at 6). Second, Ms. 
Alfonsi allegedly works for the federal government at a location 

6 
 
a process server could not access. (Id.). Third, the conflicting 
accounts of whether the Rockville address is Ms. Alfonsi’s primary 
residence makes service by mail alone impracticable. Thus, Md. 
Rule 2-121(c) controls given the impracticability of service under 
Md. Rule 2-121(b). 
To pass constitutional muster, notice must be “reasonably 
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested 
parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an 
opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover 
Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950); Elmco Props., Inc. v. 
Second Nat’l Fed. Sav. Ass’n, 94 F.3d 914, 920-21 (4
th Cir. 1996). 
“When available, the combination of the two service options of 
mailing to the last known address and posting service on the door 
of that address, sometimes referred to as ‘nail and mail,’ 
continuously has been found to provide the constitutionally 
required level of notice in a situation demanding alternative 
service.” Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. M&R Title, Inc., No. 12-
cv-148-PWG, 2013 WL 12423808, at *2 (D.Md. Feb. 15, 2013). 
Plaintiff proposes “mail and email” and omits the “nail.” 
Mail and email alone will not suffice. The court will also require 
posting service on the door of the Rockville address and D.C. 
condominium. Plaintiff has shown that Ms. Alfonsi actively uses 

7 
 
the two email addresses he wishes to serve. (ECF Nos. 9-9, 9-10, 
9-11, 9-12). Together, service via nail, mail, and email is 
“reasonably calculated to give actual notice” under Md. Rule 2-
121(c). See LPUSA, LLC v. Wheelz Up Garage, Inc., No. 24-cv-1385-
DKC, 2024 WL 4252986, at *3 (D.Md. Sep. 20, 2024) (authorizing 
service by the same three methods). 
Accordingly, service will be authorized on Ms. Alfonsi in her 
personal capacity and on behalf of Kisoly International by emailing 
Ms. Alfonsi copies of the Summonses and Complaint, and by mailing 
and leaving copies of the Summonses and Complaint at the Rockville 
address and D.C. condominium. 
III. Conclusion 
Plaintiff has diligently attempted to serve Ms. Alfonsi and 
Kisoly International. Defendants are evading service and further 
attempts would be futile. Good cause exists to authorize 
alternative service. Service may be effectuated by posting on the 
door of and mailing the Summonses and Complaint to the two 
addresses associated with Ms. Alfonsi, and by emailing the 
Summonses and Complaint to Ms. Alfonsi’s two known email addresses. 

8 
 
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for alternative 
service of process will be granted. A separate order will follow. 
 
 /s/ 
 DEBORAH K. CHASANOW 
 United States District Judge

Passage view · GavelSight