Jagos v. Xcelerated Investments, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER denying motion for reconsideration of 8/13/12 Order 13 (re 14 Response filed by Henry M Jagos) Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

HENRY M. JAGOS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-CV-11955
v.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
XCELERATED INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
On May 1, 2012, plaintiff filed this action alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a certificate of service showing the
summons and complaint were sent to defendant at 2940 Hebron Park Drive, Suite 307,
Hebron, Kentucky, 41048 by certified mail, return receipt requested. Rebecca Bowman
signed the receipt form. Rebecca Bowman is not listed as an officer on the Kentucky
Secretary of State’s profile for defendant. The Kentucky Secretary of State’s profile for
defendant shows that defendant has designated Business Filings Incorporated as its
registered agent, at 306 West Main Street, Suite 512, Frankfort, Kentucky, 40601.
As noted in this court’s August 13, 2012 order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)
provides the manner for serving a corporation. A corporation may be served by “following
state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the
state where the district court is located or where service is made” or “by delivering a copy
of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any
other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and – if the
-1-

agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires – by also mailing a copy of
each to the defendant.”
Defendant did not answer the complaint and plaintiff filed a motion for default
judgment. However, because it does not appear that defendant was properly served, the
court denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment without prejudice and cancelled the
hearing. The order instructed that plaintiff could “file a motion for default judgment after
demonstrating proper service on defendant.”
On August 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a “response” to that order, asking the court to
reconsider its order denying plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.

Plaintiff argues

defendant was aware of this case as evidenced by some email correspondence discussing
settlement negotiations.

However, plaintiff fails to demonstrate proper service on

defendant as instructed by the order. The court therefore construes plaintiff’s response as
a motion for reconsideration and DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 6, 2012
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served on September 6, 2012, by
U.S. mail, upon plaintiff at 6776 N. Burkhart Road, Howell, MI
48855, upon defendant at 2940 Hebron Park Drive, Suite 307,
Hebron, Kentucky, 41048, and upon defendant’s registered
agent at 306 West Main Street, Suite 512, Frankfort,
Kentucky, 40601.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-2-