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