The Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson v. Sandnes et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 66 Defendant Michael Sandnes's Motion to Quash Insufficient Service of Process. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/14/2013. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF JUANITA AMELIA
JACKSON, by and through CATHY
JACKSON-PLATTS, f/k/a CATHERINE
WHATLEY, Personal Representative,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

8:13-cv-1133-T-33MAP

MICHAEL
SANDNES,
as
CourtAppointed Receiver for Trans
Healthcare, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant
Michael

Sandnes’s

Motion

to

Quash

Insufficient

Service

of

Process (Doc. # 66), which was filed on September 20, 2013.
Plaintiff, the Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson, by and through
Cathy Jackson-Platts, filed a Response in Opposition to the
Motion to Quash (Doc. # 69) on October 4, 2013.

Thereafter,

with leave of Court, the Estate filed a supplemental Declaration
(Doc. # 78-1) on October 31, 2013.

In addition, on November 8,

2013, Sandnes filed a Reply (Doc. # 81). For the reasons that
follow, the Court denies the Motion to Quash.
I.

Background
On April 26, 2013, the Estate filed a two-count Complaint

against

Sandnes

and

several

other

defendants

alleging

Deprivation of Rights Under the Civil Rights Act (count 1) and
Civil Conspiracy (count 2).

On August 22, 2013, the Estate

alerted the Court to the fact that it had yet to serve Sandnes
as

follows:

“the

120

days

in

which

to

serve

process

on

Defendant, Michael Sandnes, a citizen of Baltimore, Maryland,
who is believed to be residing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
is scheduled to expire on August 24, 2013.” (Doc. # 54 at 1).
The Estate requested a 120-day extension of time until and
including December 22, 2013, in which to serve Sandnes outside
of the United States.
The Court scheduled a hearing on the Extension Motion for
September 12, 2013, and on the morning of the hearing, the
Estate filed a “Proof of Service” reflecting that service on
Sandnes was effected by process server Ziyad Al Safi on August
30, 2013. (Doc. # 61-2).
pertinent

part:

“I

left

The Proof of Service states in
the

summons

at

the

individual’s

residence or usual place of abode with M.H. Alqadi (person in
charge at time of service), a person of suitable age and
discretion who resides there.” (Id.).

In addition to filing the

Proof of Service executed by Al Safi, the Estate tendered the
Declaration of Nelson Tucker, the CEO of Process Service Network
LLC. (Doc. # 61-3).

Therein, Tucker indicated: “I have been

advised by the process server that he completed the service on
-2-

August 30, 2013, at Al Qadi Speciality Hospital, King Saud Road,
Al Fahad District, Najran, Saudi Arabia.

I have reviewed the

issues related to the service and conclude that the service
complies with the laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi

law does not prohibit substituted service.” (Id. at ¶ 4).
During the hearing, the Court and the parties examined the
Proof of Service and the Declaration filed in support thereof.
Counsel for the Estate also candidly acknowledged that Sandnes’s
LinkedIn profile states that his position at Al Qadi Speciality
Hospital ended in May 2013.1

At the conclusion of the hearing,

the Estate withdrew the Extension Motion. (Doc. # 62).
Thereafter,

on

September

20,

2013,

Sandnes

filed

the

instant Motion to Quash for Insufficient Service of Process.
(Doc. # 66).

The Estate responded to the Motion to Quash (Doc.

# 69) and also filed the Process Server’s Declaration (Doc. #
78).

Therein, Al Safi explains:
On July 5, 2013, I received an assignment for service
of process in Saudi Arabia. . . . The service was to
be completed by the informal method, service by
private process server, since Saudi Arabia does not
honor Letters Rogatory and is not a signer of the
Hague Convention. . . . On August 30, 2013, at 2:50

1

A copy of Sandnes’s LinkedIn Profile is before the
Court and reflects that Sandnes was the CEO of Al Qadi
Speciality Hospital from February of 2012, until May of 2013.
(Doc. # 67). The relevant LinkedIn profile contains Sandnes’s
email address and telephone number, but omits his address.
-3-

p.m. I made service on Sandnes by handing the
documents (Summons in a Civil Action, Complaint and
Jury Demand, and related court-issued documents) to
Mr. M.H. Alqadi, who identified himself to me as the
son of the owner of the hospital. He advised me that
Sandnes was out of town and the date of his return was
unknown to him. He advised me that Sandnes occupies
a sleeping room in the hospital when he is in town and
that he receives mail there. He advised me that he
would pass on the documents to Sandnes when he
returned to the hospital. It is not required that an
individual be designated as a person (agent) to accept
service of process in Saudi Arabia as there is no such
law in existence. . . . I fully believe that the
service was just and proper.
(Doc. # 78-1).
II.

Discussion
The

Court

evaluates

Al

Safi’s

Proof

of

Service

and

accompanying Declaration against the touchstone of Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 4(f), Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country,
states:
Unless
federal
law
provides
otherwise,
an
individual–other than a minor, an incompetent person,
or a person whose waiver has been filed–may be served
at a place not within any judicial district of the
United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service
that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as
those authorized by the Hague Convention on the
Service
Abroad
of
Judicial
and
Extrajudicial
Documents;
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if
an international agreement allows but does not specify
other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated
to give notice:

-4-

(A) as prescribed by the foreign country’s law
for service in that country in an action in its
courts of general jurisdiction;
(B) as the foreign authority directs in response
to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or
(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country’s
law, by:
(i) delivering a copy of the summons and of
the complaint to the individual personally;
or
(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk
addresses and sends to the individual and that
requires a signed receipt; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international
agreement, as the court orders.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f).2
As explained in Bodyup Fitness, LLC v. 2080039 Ontario,
Inc., No. 07-22223, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13494, at *9 (M.D.
Fla. Feb. 23, 2008), “A process server’s return of service is
presumed to be valid and satisfies plaintiff’s initial prima
facie burden absent strong and convincing evidence presented to
the contrary.”
Sandnes correctly points out that Al Safi’s original Return
of Service was deficient because it did not state the address of
Al

Qadi

Speciality

Hospital

and

did

not

relationship between Sandnes and M.H. Alqadi.

identify

the

However, at this

juncture, Al Safi has provided more information to the Court
through a detailed Declaration. (Doc. # 78-1).

2

Al Safi provides

The parties agree that Saudi Arabia is not a signatory
to the Hague Convention.
-5-

the

missing

address

and

explains

the

relationship

between

Sandnes and M.H. Alqadi (that M.H. Alqadi is the son of the
owner of Al Qadi Speciality Hospital).
After service has been accomplished, Rule 4(l) requires
that

a

Plaintiff

file

proof

of

service.

Rule

4(l)(2)(B)

indicates that service not within any judicial district of the
United States must be proved, “if made under Rule 4(f)(2) or
(f)(3), by a receipt signed by the addressee, or by other
evidence satisfying the court that the summons and complaint
were delivered to the addressee.”
Because the Estate has filed a Return of Service for
Sandnes,

the

Estate

has

met

its

prima

facie

burden

of

establishing service on Sandnes. Bodyup Fitness, LLC, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13494 at *9.

Sandnes, on the other hand, has not

come forward with evidence of a strong and convincing character
to refute that service has been effected.

Notably, Sandnes has

not come forward with an affidavit stating that he no longer
lives and works at Al Qadi Speciality Hospital and that he did
not receive the Summons and the Complaint.

Sandnes’s unsworn

copy of his LinkedIn profile suggesting that Sandnes no longer
works at the Hospital is not dispositive.

As argued by the

Estate, it was Sandnes’s burden to state facts of a strong and
convincing nature (via an affidavit, declaration, or similar
-6-

document) tending to cast doubt on the validity of the service
achieved by the Estate.

Sandnes has not done so.3

It is apparent that Sandnes is aware of this suit, and the
Court determines that Sandnes has not been prejudiced by any
irregularities present in the Return of Service documents before
the Court.

As stated in Sanderford v. Prudential Insurance Co.,

902 F.2d 897, 900 (11th Cir. 1990), “Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P., is
a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a
party receives sufficient notice of the complaint.” (internal
citations

omitted).

Further,

the

Court

is

mindful

that

accomplishing service in Saudi Arabia is no easy task. See, e.g,
Ehrenfeld v. Salim a Bin Mahfouz, No. 04-cv-9641, 2005 WL
696769, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2005)(describing some of the
challenges associated with effecting service of process in Saudi
Arabia).

3

In his reply, Sandnes provides a supplemental
Declaration signed by Nelson on October 9, 2013, in which
Nelson indicates, “On September 30, 2013, I received a phone
call from Al Safi advising me that the hospital was now under
renovation and that there were no longer employees staffing
the facility - only construction workers.” (Doc. # 81-1 at ¶
4). Putting aside the hearsay nature of the statement and
assuming that construction did, in fact, commence as of
September 30, 2013, this would not defeat the Estate’s
contention that service of process was accomplished at Al Qadi
Specialty Hospital on August 30, 2013.
-7-

The Motion to Quash is due to be denied.

The Court accepts

Sandnes’s alternative argument that he joins in the Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendant Alan Grochal (Doc. # 30).

The Court

will issue an Order on that Motion via separate Order.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant Michael Sandnes’s Motion to Quash Insufficient
Service of Process (Doc. # 66) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 14th
day of November, 2013.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

-8-