NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. JMMKC CORPORATION et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ALLOW SERVICE BY ALTERNATIVE METHOD denying 7 Motion for Service by Alternative Method By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN H. RICH III. (lrc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
JMMKC CORPORATION, et al.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALLOW SERVICE BY
The plaintiff has moved for permission to serve defendants Lois M. Alhquist and Joel A.
Nason by alternative means, specifically by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at an
address in Lewiston, Maine, that it characterizes as their usual place of abode. ECF No. 7. Because
the motion is incomplete, it is denied without prejudice.
The plaintiff has failed to submit the draft proposed order to provide the requested form of
service that is required by Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 4(g)(1) and (2). See, e.g., Camden Nat’l
Bank v. Reid, No. 2:13-cv-376-DBH, 2014 WL 1320944, at *1 (D. Me. Mar. 28, 2014) (alternative
service in this court governed by Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 4).
In addition, the plaintiff’s motion is deficient in several other respects. The draft order
should include service in some manner upon the unspecified “different address in Lewiston,
Maine,” Affidavit of David Therrien in Support of Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Service of Process on the Defendants Lois M. Alhquist and Joel A. Nason (ECF No. 7-1) ¶ 13, to
which certified mail addressed to Lois M. Alhquist was apparently forwarded. Furthermore, the
Therrien affidavit and the plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts also submitted in support of
plaintiff’s motion do not identify (1) “this office” to which the affidavit of David Therrien (ECF
No. 7-1) refers, (2) the employment and/or employer of Mr. Therrien, or (3) “this office” to which
the plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 8) refers.
The plaintiff’s motion, as filed, is denied; the plaintiff is granted leave to file a new motion
addressing the missing information discussed herein, should it elect to do so.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file an
objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to review by the
district court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated this 29th day of December, 2016.
/s/ John H. Rich III
John H. Rich III
United States Magistrate 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?