Craine v. Prism Resolution, LLC
Order re: 6 Application for Entry of Default Judgment as to Prism Resolution, LLC filed by Jolene Craine. The application for entry of default, construed as a motion, is denied. The plaintiff is ordered to Show Cause by 10/19/2011 why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 10/5/2011. (tgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
PRISM RESOLUTION LLC,
) CIVIL ACTION 11-0010-WS-C
The plaintiff has filed an “Application for Entry of Default,” (Doc. 6), which in its
text seeks entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2).
“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed
to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules,” it is subject to entry of default.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). But a defendant is under no obligation to plead or otherwise defend
until and unless it is “served with the summons and complaint.” Id. Rule 12(a)(1)(A);
accord Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 261 (11th
Cir. 2008). Thus, “[b]efore a default can be entered, ... the party must have been
effectively served with process.” 10 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2682 at 14 (3rd ed. 1998).
The defendant is a limited liability company. Service of process on a corporation,
partnership or association may be made in accordance with Rule 4(h) or by following
Alabama law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). The only recognized means of serving an artificial
entity under federal law is “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to”
specified individuals. Id. Rule 4(h)(1)(B). “The term ‘delivering’ appears to refer to
personal service.” Dyer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 318 Fed. Appx. 843, 844 (11th Cir.
2009). Other Circuits have routinely so concluded.1 The plaintiff did not deliver process
to the defendant but used certified mail. (Doc. 5). Thus, the defendant was not served in
compliance with Rule 4(h)(1)(B). Dyer, 318 Fed. Appx. at 843-44 (service by certified
mail on defendant’s registered agent did not satisfy Rule 4(h)(1)(B)).
Under Alabama law, an artificial entity may be served “by serving an officer, a
partner (other than a limited partner), a managing or general agent, or any agent
authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Ala. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(6). Service on an artificial entity may be made by certified mail, but “the addressee
shall be a person described in the appropriate subdivision.” Id. Rule 4(i)(2)(B)(i), (ii).
That is, the mailing must be addressed, not simply to the artificial entity, but to a human
being affiliated with the entity as an officer, partner or agent as described in Rule 4(c)(6).
Here, the certified mailing was addressed to “Prism Resolution, LLC,” with no human
addressee. (Doc. 5). The plaintiff thus has failed to show effective service under
Because the plaintiff has not established effective service of process, her
application for entry of default, construed as a motion, is denied.
This action was filed in January 2011, and service remains unperfected nine
months later. The plaintiff’s failure to perfect service within 120 days after filing the
complaint exposes it to dismissal without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if
E.g., Gilliam v. County of Tarrant, 94 Fed. Appx. 230, 230 (5th Cir. 2004) (municipal
corporations); Larsen v. Mayo Medical Center, 218 F.3d 863, 868 (8th Cir. 2000) (corporations);
Husner v. City of Buffalo, 1999 WL 48776 (2nd Cir. 1999) (municipal corporations); Gabriel v.
United States, 30 F.3d 75, 77 (7th Cir. 1994) (United States Attorney); Puet v. Blandford, 912
F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (United States Attorney); accord 1 James Wm. Moore, et al.,
Moore’s Federal Practice § 4.53 (3rd ed. 2007) (corporations).
Nor has the plaintiff shown that any such human addressee falls within the class of
persons to whom process may be directed under Rule 4(c)(6) or that “PW” (or “RW”), who
signed for the certified mail, is the agent of such addressee as defined in Rule 4(i)(2)(C).
the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service
for an appropriate period.” Id. Good cause exists “only when some outside factor such
as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence, prevented service.”
Prisco v. Frank, 929 F.2d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1991). Absent good cause, the Court may,
but need not, allow additional time. Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129,
1132 (11th Cir. 2005); accord Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Commissioners, 476
F.3d 1277, 1281-82 (11th Cir. 2007). In determining whether to exercise its discretion to
extend the time for service despite the lack of good cause, a court considers whether the
defendant is evading service, whether it is concealing defects in service, and whether the
statute of limitations will bar the refiling of the lawsuit should it be dismissed.
Horenkamp, 402 F.3d at 1132. This is “not an exhaustive list” of factors a court may
consider. Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1182.
The plaintiff is ordered to show cause, on or before October 19, 2011, why this
action should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). The plaintiff
may attempt to show that good cause exists under Rule 4(m), or that the Court should
exercise its discretion to extend the time for service despite the absence of good cause, or
DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 2011.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?