Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; October 4, 2018; Federal District Court
Plaintiff, representing themselves, filed a lawsuit in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas against JSD Management, Inc., Kelly Hendrick, and Darcy Clark under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. JSD removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. Defendants Hendrick and Clark also moved to dismiss due to insufficient service of process. The Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint with eleven new causes of action. JSD challenged the amended complaint, asserting it did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) because it was filed six days past the allowed time frame after JSD's motion to dismiss. Despite this, the court, considering the Plaintiff's pro se status and lack of bad faith, permitted the amendment in the interest of justice, denying JSD's motion to strike.
Hendrick and Clark sought dismissal on grounds of insufficient process, noting the absence of proper summonses issued in their names. While acknowledging the defects, the court determined that actual notice had been provided and the defendants suffered no prejudice, thus the service was valid. The court examined whether the Plaintiff adequately served Hendrick and Clark by mailing documents to them at JSD. Under Pennsylvania law, service on an out-of-state defendant requires proof of receipt signed by the defendant or their authorized agent. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the return receipts from the mailings were signed by either Hendrick, Clark, or an authorized agent, leading to a conclusion that service was insufficient.
Plaintiff has not provided details on attempts to serve Defendants with the original complaint; Defendants assert it was signed for by Janet Talbot. The return receipt for the amended complaint was signed by Rebecca Evans, but there is no information about their connection to the Defendants. Both Talbot and Evans state in affidavits that they are not authorized to accept service for Hendrick or Clark, and they believed the summonses were addressed to JSD, not to the Defendants. The Court finds no reasonable grounds to consider Evans or Talbot as agents for service. Additionally, the Plaintiff did not submit a signed return receipt for the September 10, 2018 summons, failing to meet the mailing requirement. The rules stipulate that service must be executed by a non-party adult, with no exceptions for pro se plaintiffs. Plaintiff's attempts involved mailing the summons and complaint to the Defendants' workplace, which does not constitute valid service. The claim that Defendants' awareness of the complaint validates service is rejected, as notice does not amend defective service. Consequently, Defendants were not properly served.
Plaintiff's request for alternative service is denied without prejudice, as he has not demonstrated that service cannot be made under Pennsylvania rules, nor shown that the Defendants are evading service.
Regarding the extension of time to serve Defendants, Rule 4 mandates service within 90 days after a case is removed to federal court, which expired on September 24, 2018. Despite not following service rules, Plaintiff made three attempts to serve Hendrick and Clark and tried to rectify defects by obtaining new summonses. Therefore, the Court grants a 30-day extension for serving the amended complaint, acknowledging Plaintiff's good faith efforts.
Defendant JSD's motion to strike the amended complaint is denied, while the motions to dismiss from Defendants Hendrick and Clark are granted in part. The Plaintiff is granted 30 days to properly effectuate service of process according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) 4. The court does not address the merits of the claims at this stage and will subsequently consider Defendant DexYP's Motion to Dismiss in a separate order.
To demonstrate prejudice in relation to amendments under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party must show actual disadvantage or loss of opportunity to present evidence, as established in case law. The Plaintiff has previously mailed both the original and amended complaints to the Defendants in July 2018. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) and Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Pa. R. Civ. P.) 403 and 404(2), out-of-state defendants can be served by mail. It is the responsibility of the party asserting validity of service to prove this, especially when relying on receipt by someone other than the defendant, as mere acceptance of mail does not imply authority to accept service.
Further, the rules stipulate that any individual serving a summons and complaint must be at least 18 years old and not a party to the action, nor an employee or relative of a party, as defined by the relevant Pennsylvania rules.
In Constien v. United States, it was established that only a nonparty can mail the summons and complaint, as noted in Reading v. United States, which stated that pro se plaintiffs cannot personally mail their own service documents. The plaintiff in this case claimed to have personally served Defendants Hendrick and Clark, as indicated in multiple Proof of Service forms. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 430(a) and related case law suggest that alternative service methods are only permissible when traditional service cannot be executed under the relevant rules, serving as a last resort. Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), district courts have the authority to extend the service timeframe without requiring a demonstration of good cause, as illustrated in cases such as UWM Student Ass'n v. Lovell and Felicetty-Stamm v. Sec'y Dept. of Homeland Sec.
