MEADOWS v. CITY OF INGLIS et al

Filing 27

ORDER re 25 Motion to Quash is DENIED. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 6/24/2011. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
JEAN M MEADOWS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ

CITY OF INGLIS, TIMOTHY LETSON, BRANDON ROBERTS,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 25, Motion to Quash Service of Process by
Timothy Letson. On May 17, 2011, plaintiff’s process server served the summons and complaint
on the adult resident, Rebecca Sammy, at 2821 SW 36th Drive, Ocala, Florida 34474. Defendant
Letson moves the Court to quash the service of the summons and complaint upon him and argues
that he resides in Afghanistan, where he is working as a civilian contractor.
Letson asserts that proper service on an individual in a foreign country is governed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (f), which would require service to be performed via letters rogatory. However,
under the Federal Rules, service of the summons and complaint may be effectuated by “leaving a
copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age
and discretion who resides there . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). On April 22, 2011, Letson signed a
sworn affidavit regarding his child’s residence and stated that the child has lived with him at the
above residence from 2006 to present. Furthermore, Rebecca Sammy informed the process
server that Letson is her fiancé and would be returning home April 2012. These facts are
sufficient for the Court to determine that Letson’s dwelling or usual place of abode is the above

Page 2 of 2

address. Moreover, “[w]here the defendant receives actual notice and the plaintiff makes a good
faith effort to serve the defendant pursuant to the federal rule, service of process has been
effective.” Ali v. Mid-Atlantic Settlement Servs., Inc., 233 F.R.D. 32, 35-6 (D.D.C. 1996).
Letson has received actual notice of suit, which is evidenced by his direct communication with
plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Furthermore, Letson has not been prejudiced by the method of
service. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Process, Doc. 25, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this

24th day of June, 2011

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ