Vision Bank v. The Rookery, LLC et al

Filing 109

ORDER denying 102 Motion to Appoint Process Server. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 7/22/2013. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ROOKERY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 11-0014-WS-C
)
)
)
)
ORDER

The plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint a special process server. (Doc. 102). The
plaintiff apparently seeks to serve “mailings of garnishment” on defendant Richard Long, against
whom default judgment was entered upon motion after he was served with process but failed to
plead or otherwise defend. (Docs. 6, 33, 42, 48, 49).
The plaintiff’s terse motion invokes without explanation Rule 5, which addresses service
of papers after the original complaint but which does not address appointment of special process
servers for that purpose.1 Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is denied, without prejudice to its
ability to file a properly supported motion.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2013.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Rule 4(c)(3) permits appointment of a special process server, but only for service of
process, which does not appear to be what the plaintiff desires to serve. And since Rule 4(c)(2)
permits service of process by “[a]ny person who is at least 18 years old and not a party,” it is not
clear why special appointment would be sought.