Batavitchene v. Taupa Lithuanian Federal Credit Union et al

Filing 30

Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: ORDER entered granting 16 Motion to Dismiss (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-10073-GAO
AUDRONE BATAVITCHENE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TAUPA LITHUANIAN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; SARUNAS NORVAISA, as President of
Taupa Lithuanian Federal Credit Union; THOMAS ASHMANSKAS, as Treasurer of Taupa
Lithuanian Federal Credit Union,
Defendants.

ORDER
July 24, 2018
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This Court previously conditionally granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for
insufficient service of process, but gave the plaintiff, Audrone Batavitchene, an experienced pro
se litigant, sixty days to effect proper service on the defendants, after which time her case would
be finally dismissed if the defendants still had not properly been served. (Order at 3, Aug. 3, 2017
(dkt. no. 14).) The plaintiff thereafter claimed, through a filing on August 16, that she had made
proper service of process by mailing the document to each defendant through DHL, an independent
courier. (Pl.’s Refiling Making Sufficient and Proper Service 3 (dkt. no. 15).) Sixty days after the
August 3 Order, the defendants filed the renewed motion to dismiss that is currently pending before
the Court.
The defendants again argue that the plaintiff failed to comply with Rules 4(e) and 4(h)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by attempting to effect service through the use of certified
mail. As this Court explained in its prior Order, neither Rule 4 of the Federal Rules, including 4(e)
for service on individuals and 4(h)(1) for service on corporations, nor its counterpart in the

Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure permits service by means of registered or certified
mail. Carter v. Spencer, Civil Action No. 16-12052-NMG, 2016 WL 6905375, at *2 (D. Mass.
Nov. 22, 2016) (“Because neither Rule 4 nor its state counterpart provides for service upon
individuals by certified or registered mail, the Court denies the motion to complete service by
certified mail.”); Payne v. Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 09-10355-PBS, 2010 WL 5583117, at
*3 (D. Mass. Nov. 18, 2010) (holding that service “by certified mail is insufficient to satisfy the
requirements of the federal or state rules for service of process” for corporations), adopted by No.
1:09-CV-10355-PBS, 2010 WL 5583111 (D. Mass. Dec. 10, 2010).
Because the plaintiff has failed to properly effect service under the Federal or
Massachusetts Rules as required by this Court’s August 3 Order, the defendants’ Renewed Motion
to Dismiss (dk. no. 16) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2