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

Filing 8

ORDER: Ronald Leroy Satterlee is instructed to comply with Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P., and to file a proof of service document once service has been accomplished. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/15/2016. (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 sua sponte.

Pro se

Plaintiff Ronald Leroy Satterlee filed this breach of contract
action against “Rev1 Power Services, Inc., et al.” on June 20,
2016. (Doc. # 1). On July 8, 2016, Satterlee filed three
documents

with

the

Court

entitled

Certificate of Service.” (Doc. ## 5-7).

“Plaintiffs

[sic]

The first of the

three Certificates purports that Sattlerlee effected service
of the summons and complaint on Defendants.1 (Doc. # 5).

At

this juncture, the Court takes the opportunity to explain to
Satterlee the requirements for properly effecting service.
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
a plaintiff to serve a summons and a copy of the complaint on

1

Curiously, although Satterlee denoted in the case
caption that the Defendants are “Rev1 Power Services, Inc., et
al,” Satterlee does not clearly identify any Defendants other
than Rev1 Power Services in the Complaint. Adding to the
confusion, the first “Certificate of Service” alleges
Satterlee served the summons and complaint on four defendants,
all of whom are corporate officers or managerial employees of
Rev1 Power Services. (Doc. # 5).

a defendant. The methods by which a corporation may be served
within a judicial district of the United States are listed in
Rule 4(h)(1).

Rule 4(h)(1) requires personal service of the

summons and complaint on an agent of the corporation absent
waiver of service by the defendant.

Dyer v. Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc., 318 F. App’x 843, 844 (11th Cir. 2009).
Pursuant to Rule 4(d), “a plaintiff may request by mail
that a defendant waive service of summons.”

Lloyd v. Foster,

298 F. App’x 836, 842 (11th Cir. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(d)(1). “If the defendant, without good cause, does not
comply with the request for waiver, the court must impose upon
the defendant the costs and expenses later incurred in making
the service.”
4(d)(2).

Lloyd, 298 F. App’x at 842; Fed. R. Civ. P.

However, a request for waiver of service does not

effect service.

Lloyd, 298 F. App’x at 842 (explaining that

a plaintiff may not “perfect service by mail without the
affirmative cooperation of the defendant.”).
Upon review of Satterlee’s “Certificate of Service,” the
Court determines service has not been properly effected. The
“Certificate of Service” states Satterlee served a copy of the
summons and complaint “upon the below listed (4) defendants by
prepaid USPS Certified Mail on June 27, 2016 and received by
defendants on June 30, 2016.” (Doc. # 5 at 1). Satterlee then
lists the names and addresses of four Rev1 Power Services

2

employees: Bob Coggin, Layla Bonis, Rick Ehrgott, and Ricky
Ehrgott. (Id. at 1-2).
Although these individuals may have received a copy of
the summons and complaint through the mail, Satterlee presents
no evidence Rev1 Power Services waived formal service. Lloyd,
298 F. App’x at 842 (affirming dismissal of claims against a
defendant

where

the

plaintiff

offered

no

evidence

that

defendant agreed to waive formal service and accept service by
mail). In particular, Satterlee has not filed a signed waiver
of service in the form prescribed by Rule 4(d)(1)(C).
Fed. R. Civ. P.

See

4(d)(4) (“When the plaintiff files a waiver,

proof of service is not required”).
Sattlerlee also provides no competent proof he effected
formal service under one of the specific methods listed in
Rule

4(h)(1).

And,

even

if

Satterlee’s

“Certificate

of

Service” did suggest that service had been properly effected,
the Certificate does not constitute a sufficient proof of
service under Rule 4(l).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) (“Except for

service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, proof
must be by the server’s affidavit.”).
In

the

instance

that

Satterlee

is

interested

in

maintaining the present action, he must comply with the
foregoing.

The deadline for Satterlee to accomplish service

is 90 days from the date he filed the Complaint. See Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 4(m). In accordance with Rule 4(m), Satterlee must
effect service by September 19, 2016. The Court further notes,
“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court–-on motion or on its own after
notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Ronald Leroy Satterlee is instructed to comply with Rule
4, Fed. R. Civ. P., and to file a proof of service document
once service has been accomplished.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 15th
day of July, 2016.

4