Satterlee v. Rev1 Power Services, Inc., et al.

Filing 11

ORDER: Ronald Leroy Satterlee is instructed to perfect service in a manner contemplated by Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P., by the September 19, 2016, deadline, and to file a proof of service document once service has been accomplished. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/2/2016. (BLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RONALD LEROY SATTERLEE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-1647-T-33TBM

REV1 POWER SERVICES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the filing of
“Plaintiffs [sic] Affidavit of Service” (Doc. # 10), filed by
pro se Plaintiff Ronald Leroy Satterlee on July 26, 2016.
After reviewing the Affidavit, the Court takes the opportunity
to reiterate to Satterlee the requirements for perfecting
service.
On July 8, 2016, Satterlee filed a document entitled
“Plaintiffs [sic] Certificate of Service,” in which Satterlee
purported

he

had

effected

service

of

process

upon

four

“defendants” associated with Defendant Rev1 Power Services,
Inc.:

Bob

Coggin,

Layla

Bonis,

Rick

Ehrgott,

and

Ricky

Ehrgott.1 (Doc. # 5). On July 15, 2016, after reviewing
Satterlee’s Certificate of Service, the Court entered an Order
advising

1

Satterlee

that

service

had

not

been

properly

None of the four individuals are listed as defendants in
the Complaint, but each of the individuals are employees or
officers of Rev1 Power Services, Inc. See (Doc. ## 1, 5).

effected.

(Doc. # 8).

Satterlee’s

mailing

Specifically, the Court noted that

of

the

summons

insufficient to effect service.

and

complaint

(Id. at 2-3).

was

The Court

explained to Satterlee the requirements for effecting service
under Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P., and directed Satterlee to file
a proof of service affidavit on the record once service was
accomplished. (Id. at 2-4).
On July 26, 2016, Satterlee filed his Affidavit of
Service.

(Doc. # 10).

The Affidavit attempts to prove that

Satterlee effected service of the summons and complaint “upon
the below listed (4) defendants individually . . . by prepaid
USPS

Certified

Mail

on

June

27,

defendants on June 30, 2016. . . .”

2016

and

(Id. at 1).

received

by

In support,

Satterlee includes scanned copies of four U.S. Postal Service
(USPS) certified mail receipts, the USPS online tracking
information

for

each

mailing,

transaction at the post office.

and

the

receipt

(Id. at 3-9).

from

his

But, none of

these documents demonstrate that Satterlee perfected service.
As explained in the July 15, 2016, Order, “[t]he methods
by

which

a

corporation

may

be

served

within

a

judicial

district of the United States are listed in Rule 4(h)(1).”
(Doc. # 8 at 2).

Under Rule 4(h)(1), a plaintiff may serve a

corporation in one of two ways.
First, a corporation may be served by “following state

2

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

4(h)(1)(A); 4(e)(1).

is

made.”

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

Service by certified mail, absent a

signed waiver by the defendant, is not sufficient under this
method.

Dyer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 318 Fed. Appx. 843,

844 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Florida courts have held that service
by certified mail, without an accompanying waiver, is not
sufficient under Rule 1.070.” (citation omitted)).
Second, a corporation may be served:
by delivering a copy of the summons
complaint to an officer, a managing
agent, or any other agent authorized by
or by law to receive service of process
agent is one authorized by statute and
so requires--by also mailing a copy of
defendant[.]
Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

4(h)(1)(B).

This

and of the
or general
appointment
and--if the
the statute
each to the

method

also

requires

personal service in the absence of a waiver by the defendant.
Dyer, 318 Fed. Appx. at 844.
Satterlee has presented no evidence that formal service
has

been

waived

in

this

case

and,

as

such,

Satterlee’s

attempts at service by certified mail are ineffective. In the
instance that Satterlee is interested in maintaining the
present action, he must perfect service in a manner consistent
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Satterlee should
carefully re-read Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P., and the July 15,

3

2016, Order to ensure he complies with the rules for effecting
service detailed therein.

The Court reminds Satterlee that

service must be perfected by September 19, 2016, pursuant to
Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Ronald Leroy Satterlee is instructed to perfect service
in a manner contemplated by Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P., by the
September 19, 2016, deadline, and to file a proof of service
document once service has been accomplished.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd
day of August, 2016.

4