Powell v. Jones-Soderman et al
ORDER: The defendants' motion to quash proof of service (Doc. No. 11 ) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons set forth in the attached document. The motion is being granted as to defendant Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts and denied as to defendant Jill Jones-Soderman. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 8/24/17. (Mata, E.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JILL JONES-SODERMAN and the
FOUNDATION FOR THE CHILD
VICTIMS OF THE FAMILY COURTS, :
Civil No. 3:16CV1653(AWT)
ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH PROOF OF SERVICE
For the reasons set forth below, the defendants’ motion to
quash proof of service (Doc. No. 11) is hereby GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
The motion is being granted as to defendant
Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts and denied
as to defendant Jill Jones-Soderman.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), which governs
serving an individual within a judicial district of the United
States, an individual “may be served in a judicial district of
the United States by . . . following state law for serving a
summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction
in the state where the district court is located or where
service is made”.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
As explained in the
Advisory Committee Notes with respect to the 1993 Amendment:
Paragraph (1) authorizes service in any judicial district
in conformity with state law. This paragraph sets forth the
authorized the use of the law of the state in which the
district court sits, but adds as an alternative the use of
the law of the state in which the service is effected.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, Advisory Comm. Notes, 1993 Amendment,
Rule 4(h), which governs serving a corporation,
partnership, or association provides that service must be made
“in a judicial district of the United States . . . in the manner
prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual”.
Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A).
Connecticut General Statutes §52-59b governs jurisdiction
of courts over nonresident individuals, foreign partnerships and
foreign voluntary associations.
The record shows that the
plaintiff has complied with the requirements of subsection (c)
for service of process upon Jill Jones-Soderman, who is a
However, although the plaintiff states in his opposition
that service was made in accordance with Section 52-59b with
respect to both defendants, the return of service with respect
to Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts states
that service was made on the Connecticut Secretary of State
pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 33-929, not § 52-59b.
To the extent that § 33-929 addresses service of process on
foreign corporations, it governs service on foreign corporations
authorized to transact business in the state [see subsections
(a), (b), (c) and (d)] and other foreign corporations subject to
suit in this state pursuant to § 33-929(e) and (f) [see
The Complaint does not allege conduct that
would make the foundation subject to suit under § 33-929.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 24th day of August 2017, at Hartford,
Alvin W. Thompson
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?