Clark v. AT&T Corporation et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 4/15/14 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/15/14. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
SHARON DENISE CLARK
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 13-2278
:
AT&T CORPORATION
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently
pending
and
ready
for
resolution
in
this
employment case is a motion to dismiss for improper service
filed
by
Defendant
(ECF No. 15).1
filed
a
AT&T
Corporation
(“AT&T”
or
“Defendant”).
Plaintiff Sharon Denise Clark, proceeding pro se,
complaint
alleging
employment
discrimination
against
Defendants AT&T and Karen Holton on August 6, 2013.
Plaintiff
then moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On August
13,
2013,
Judge
Alexander
Williams
issued
an
order
granting
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
No. 3).
(ECF
Judge Williams noted that “[i]n light of Plaintiff’s
indigency status, the United States Marshal shall effect service
of
process
on
Defendants.”
Plaintiff,
however,
had
not
“furnished a U.S. Marshal service of process form for the named
1
This case was transferred to the undersigned from Judge
Alexander Williams, Jr. on November 27, 2013. As Judge Williams
indicated in the November 12, 2013 memorandum opinion, Plaintiff
named “AT&T Corporation” as a Defendant, but it appears that
AT&T Mobility Services, LLC is the actual party in interest.
(ECF No. 12, at 1 n.1).
Defendants in this case and ha[d] not provided service copies of
the
Complaint.”
(Id.
at
1).
Accordingly,
the
clerk
was
directed to send a copy of the order, together with two copies
of
the
U.S.
Marshal
service
of
process
form
to
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days from the date of order
to complete the Marshal forms and return them to the Clerk and
provide
service
cautioned
that
copies
“the
of
the
failure
complaint.
to
return
the
Judge
Williams
completed
Marshal
forms in a timely manner may result in the dismissal of this
case without prejudice and without further notice.”
The
order
number
for
provided
the
Plaintiff
Maryland
with
State
the
website
Department
of
(Id. at 2).
and
telephone
Assessments
and
Taxations (“SDAT”) to obtain the name and service address for
AT&T’s resident agent.
(See id. at 1 n.1.).
Plaintiff subsequently instructed the U.S. Marshal to serve
the summons and complaint on Karen Holton, an Alabama resident,
at AT&T’s Birmingham, Alabama office.
(ECF No. 4).
Defendants
moved to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed
properly to effectuate service of process on AT&T.
treated
Defendant’s
motion
concerning
service, and granted the motion.
“Holton
is
not
an
officer,
as
one
to
quash
Judge Williams stated that
managing
2
AT&T
The court
or
general
agent,
or
a
person authorized by appointment or law to receive service of
process on behalf of AT&T as required under Federal rule 4(h),
Maryland law, or Alabama law.”
Plaintiff
Judge
failed
to
Williams
effectuate
nevertheless
(ECF No. 12, at 4).
service
of
allowed
process
Plaintiff
opportunity to effectuate service of process on AT&T.”
13).
Thus,
on
AT&T.
“another
(ECF No.
He directed Plaintiff to complete the U.S. Marshal form
(“USM-285”) and return it to the Clerk within twenty-one (21)
days from the date of the order.
Plaintiff
“that
failure
to
Judge Williams again cautioned
provide
the
proper
address
for
service of process on AT&T may result in the dismissal of this
case.”
On
(Id. at 2).2
November
18,
2013,
Plaintiff
completed
USM-285
and
directed the U.S. Marshal to serve Anthony Randolph with AT&T in
Dallas, Texas.
served again.
(See ECF No. 14-1).3
Karen Holton was also
(See ECF No. 15-2 ¶ 5, Declaration of Karen
Holton (“Despite my inability to accept service of process on
2
Judge Williams dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Karen
Holton for lack of personal jurisdiction.
(See ECF Nos. 12 &
13).
3
According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Anthony Randolph is an
AT&T employee who interviewed Plaintiff for a position with
AT&T.
Randolph’s alleged statements to Plaintiff during the
interview
form
the
gravamen
of
Plaintiff’s
employment
discrimination claim.
3
behalf of AT&T, on December 3, 2013, I was again personally
served”)).
Defendant moved to dismiss on December 24, 2013 for
insufficient
service
of
process
pursuant
to
Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(5), arguing that Plaintiff still has not properly effected
service on AT&T.
lists
the
resident
service
(ECF No. 15).
Corporation
agent,
on
in
Trust
Incorporated
Baltimore,
Defendant’s
As Defendant points out, SDAT
Maryland,
behalf.
(See
(“CTI”)
as
to
authorized
ECF
No.
AT&T’s
accept
15-3
¶
3,
Declaration of Paula Phillips (“AT&T is incorporated in Delaware
and
does
business
Corporation
agent.”)).
When
Trust
in
Maryland,
where
Incorporated[]
to
it
serve
has
as
enlisted
its
The
resident
Plaintiff has not served CTI.
a
defendant
moves
to
dismiss
for
improper
service
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), “the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing
the
validity
of
service
pursuant
to
Rule
4.”
O’Meara v. Waters, 464 F.Supp.2d 474, 476 (D.Md.2006); see also
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(l)(1).
“Generally, when service of process gives
the defendant actual notice of the pending action, the courts
may construe Rule 4 liberally to effectuate service and uphold
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court.”
Id.
(citing
Karlsson
v.
Rabinowitz, 318 F.2d 666, 668 (4th Cir.1963); Armco, Inc. v.
Penrod–Stauffer
Bldg.
Sys.,
Inc.,
4
733
F.2d
1087,
1089
(4th
Cir.1984)).
The “plain requirements for the means of effecting
service of process,” however, “may not be ignored.”
Armco, 733
F.2d at 1089.
Despite
clear
instruction
from
Judge
Williams
regarding
properly serving Defendant, Plaintiff still has not done so.
See, e.g., Murphy v. Adams, Civil Action No. DKC 12-1975,
2013
WL 791191, at *4 (D.Md. Mar. 1, 2013) (“[y]et even after the
court granted a provisional extension, the evidence before the
court
shows
that
requirements.”).
[p]laintiff
did
not
comply
with
these
As Defendant points out, Plaintiff has served
Karen Holton and Anthony Randolph - two individuals who are not
authorized
Plaintiff
to
was
accept
service
afforded
two
of
process
opportunities
on
behalf
properly
of
to
AT&T.
execute
service, and was duly warned that failure to provide the correct
address could result in a dismissal of her case.
foregoing,
Defendant’s
motion
to
service of process will be granted.
dismiss
for
Based on the
insufficient
See, e.g., Murphy, 2013 WL
791191, at *4 (noting that allowing the case to proceed where
defendant
was
not
properly
requirements of the rules).
served
would
eviscerate
the
A separate order will follow.
________/s/________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
5
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?