USA v. J.A. Greenwood Roofing

Filing 8

ORDER, Court is not persuaded that plaintiff has made adequate service of process on defendant. On or before 4/14/2011, plaintiff to file sufficient proof to show that the individual served with the complaint is the proper recip ient of service for defendant under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court vacates order of 2/17/11 (doc. no. 7). Once the record is clarified as to the nature of the business entity sued, and the adequacy of service of process, the court will e xamine the applicability of Local Rule 83.6(c) to determine whether Mr. Greenwood may answer pro se for defendant in this matter or whether counsel must appear for defendant. Vacating 7 Order Directing Appearance on behalf of business. ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 4/14/2011.) So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (amm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States v. J.A. Greenwood Roofing Case No. 10-cv-590-LM

O R D E R On December 21, 2010, the United States of America ("plaintiff") filed a complaint against J.A. Greenwood Roofing ("defendant") (doc. no. 1). The complaint seeks to enforce

civil penalties imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration totaling $25,035.05 against defendant. On

January 31, 2011, plaintiff filed a return of service (doc. no. 4), stating that defendant had been served. The certificate of

service (doc. no. 4-1) indicates that, on January 19, 2011, the sheriff's office served defendant "by delivering to and leaving with [defendant] personally a true copy thereto, said person being known or identified to me as the person mentioned and described therein."

On February 10, 2011, John Greenwood filed an answer on behalf of defendant. In the answer, John Greenwood denied that

plaintiff had served defendant and stated: "Defendant served is John A. Greenwood, a person who resides at 6 Kimball Road, Londonderry, New Hampshire 03053." answer using the same address. Based upon the record, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff has made adequate service of process on defendant. On John Greenwood signed the

or before April 14, 2011, plaintiff shall file sufficient proof to show that the individual served with the complaint is the proper recipient of service for defendant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) & (g)

(setting forth service requirements for individuals and corporate defendants). The court vacates the order entered on February 17, 2011 (doc. no. 7), directing counsel to file an appearance on behalf of defendant. Once the record is clarified as to the nature of

the business entity being sued, and the adequacy of service of process, the court will examine the applicability of Local Rule

2

83.6(c) to determine whether Mr. Greenwood may answer pro se for defendant in this matter or whether counsel must appear for defendant. SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Landya McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge Dated: cc: March 24, 2011

Michael T. McCormack, Esq. J.A. Greenwood Roofing

3