H.D. SMITH, LLC v. THE PRIME RITE CORPORATION et al
Filing
5
OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 7/5/16. (DD, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
H.D. SMITH, LLC, etc.,
:
:
Civil Action No. 16-294 (ES) (MAH)
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
THE PRIME RITE CORPORATION,
:
OPINION
etc., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff for leave to effectuate service
of process by publication, and for an enlargement of time to serve Defendants. Pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 78, no oral argument was heard. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for leave
to effectuate service by publication is granted, and Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to
serve Defendants is granted.
II.
BACKGROUND
On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff, H.D. Smith, LLC, filed a Complaint against Defendants
The Prime Rite Corporation and Chibueze A. Adiele seeking to collect monies due from Prime
Rite pursuant to a purchasing agreement, statement of terms and a promissory note.
See
Complaint, Jan. 15, 2016, D.E. 1. Plaintiff argues that it has made repeated attempts to serve
Defendants “at no less than five addresses and across two states, without success.” Id. at p. 1.
Plaintiff certifies that, in an attempt to serve Defendants, Plaintiff has “conducted a corporate
search, a person locator search, postal searches and a voter registration search as well as attempted
to contact a relative of Adiele.” Id. Plaintiff argues that personal service has been unsuccessful,
and now seeks leave to serve Defendants by publication pursuant to N.J.R. 4:4-5. Plaintiff’s Brief
in Support of Motion for Leave to Effectuate Service of Process by Publication, Apr. 15, 2016,
D.E. 4-2, at 3-4. Plaintiff proposes service by publication once in a newspaper published of general
circulation in Essex County, New Jersey (The Star Ledger) and Clark County, Nevada (Las VegasReview Journal).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Service by Publication
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) states:
Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an
incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served in a
judicial district of the United States by:
(1) 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
(2) doing any of the following:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the
individual personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place
of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides
there; or
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment
or by law to receive service of process.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).
Under New Jersey law, personal service is the primary method of effecting service. See
N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4(a), 4:4-5(a). New Jersey Court Rules 4:4-3 and 4:4-4(a) prescribe the methods
of effecting personal service within the state. Substitute or constructive service, however, is
permitted when personal service within the state cannot be effected. See N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4(b), 4:45. For in personam jurisdiction, New Jersey Court Rule 4:4-4(b) provides the methods of
2
substitute or constructive service, such as personal service outside the state, simultaneous mailings
by ordinary and certified (or registered) mail, and “as provided by court order, consistent with due
process of law.” N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4(b)(1), (b)(3). For in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction, New
Jersey Court Rule 4:4-5 provides the methods for personal, substitute, and constructive service,
such as service by publication. Regardless of the type of action, substitute or constructive service
requires a demonstration of due diligence that satisfies the requirements specified in New Jersey
Court Rule 4:4-5(b). See N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-5(a); 4:4-4 (b)(1) (cross-referencing Rule 4:4-5(b)); N.J.
Ct. R. 4:4(b)(3) (noting that service by a court order consistent with due process is precluded “[i]f
service can be made by any of the modes provided by this rule”); see also Garrett v. Matisa, 394
N.J. Super. 468, 475–76 (Ch. Ct. 2007) (using affidavit requirement in Rule 4:4-5 as model for
unique notice issue).
Diligence has no fixed standard. See Modan v. Modan, 327 N.J. Super. 44, 48 (App. Div.
2000). The diligence exercised and the alternative service requested must meet the constitutional
requirements of due process.
Cf. O’Connor v. Abraham Altus, 67 N.J. 106, 126–127 (1975).
Namely, the “elementary and fundamental requirement of due process” is that there be “notice
reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of
the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” O’Connor, 67 N.J. at 126
(quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314); see also Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002)
(“Since Mullane was decided, we have regularly turned to it when confronted with questions
regarding the adequacy of the method used to give notice.”). Accordingly, when considering
diligence, the Court conducts a fact-sensitive inquiry “measured by the qualitative efforts of a
specific plaintiff seeking to locate and serve a specific defendant.” Modan, 327 N.J. Super. at 48
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Diligence requires that a plaintiff follow up on
3
information it possesses or can reasonably obtain, but it does not necessarily mean a plaintiff take
every conceivable action. Id. at 48–49 (collecting cases).
Service by publication, as requested here, “is hardly favored and is the method of service
that is least likely to give notice.” M & D Assocs. v. Mandara, 366 N.J. Super. 341, 353 (App.
Div. 2004) (citing Modan, 327 N.J. Super. at 48). “Chance alone brings to the attention of even a
local resident an advertisement in small type inserted in the back pages of a newspaper, and if he
makes his home outside the area of the newspaper’s normal circulation the odds that the
information will never reach him are large indeed.” Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315. Nevertheless, “in
the case of persons missing or unknown, employment of an indirect and even a probably futile
means of notification is all that the situation permits and creates no constitutional bar to a final
decree foreclosing their rights.” Id. at 317.
Here, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has demonstrated due diligence in attempting to
serve Defendants. A review of the Declaration of Melissa A. Peña, Esq., shows that, in
accordance with N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4(a), Plaintiff sought the assistance of a process server to
personally serve Defendants The Prime Rite Corporation, and Chibueze A. Adiele, the personal
guarantor of Prime Rite’s obligations. Peña Decl., D.E. 4-1, ¶¶ 3-6. The process server
attempted to serve Prime Rite at the address listed on the agreement and promissory note for
Prime Rite, 846 Broad Street, Newark, NJ. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. After a field investigation, the process
server notified Plaintiff’s counsel that the Prime Rite entity was previously located at 841 Broad
Street and that address is now a vacant store front. Id. ¶ 6. Additionally, Prime Rite’s
telephone number had been disconnected. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel conducted postal searches of
both the 841 and 846 Broad Street addresses. Id. The postal search of the 846 address indicated
“no such address.” Id. The postal search of the 841 indicated “moved, left no forwarding.” Id.
4
A corporate search of Prime Rite revealed 846 Broad Street as the main business address, as well
as an address for its registered agent, Adiele. Id. at ¶ 7. The process server attempted to effect
service of the Summons and Complaint on the registered agent. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. However, the
address indicated was for a single family home that was “visibly vacant, house is boarded up,
electric is turned off.” Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiff’s counsel then conducted a person locator search for
the registered agent, which revealed that he owned a home in Monroe Township. Id. at ¶ 10.
When the process server attempted to serve the agent at the Monroe Township home, he was met
with a female tenant at the address who indicated “this entity does not exist at this address. Id. at
¶ 11. She said she has gotten mail for the company, but just gives it to her landlord, Sheila.” 1 Id.
A postal search of the Monroe Township address indicated “moved, left no forwarding address.”
Id. The person locator search for the registered agent also indicated an address in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Id. at ¶ 12. Attempts to serve Prime Rite’s registered agent at that address were also
unsuccessful. Id. at ¶ 13. The address listed was for a business tenant, Postal Etc., a mailbox and
shipping business. Id. The owner of that company indicated that Postal Etc. is not the registered
agent for Prime Rite, and is not familiar with Prime Rite or Chibueze Adiele. Id.
With respect to service of Chibueze Adiele, the Guaranty indicated an address in
Springfield, NJ. Id. at ¶ 15. The process server was unable to serve Adiele at that address and
the female occupant of the home indicated she had resided there for over 3 years. Id. at ¶ 16.
Plaintiff’s counsel requested a postal search of Adiele at that address which indicated “not
1
This tenant also believed Adiele to be the husband or ex-husband of her landlord,
Sheila. Id. at ¶ 18. The tenant also stated that her landlord lives in Las Vegas. Id. Plaintiff’s
counsel attempted to contact Sheila at a telephone number provided by the tenant but the
telephone calls were not responded to. Id.
5
known at address given.” Id. A search of the website for the New Jersey Department of State
Voter Information reflected only a town, Monroe Township for Adiele. Id. at ¶ 20.
In light of these circumstances, the Court will allow Plaintiff to effectuate service upon
Defendants by publication. It is clear that Plaintiff has exhausted the options for personal service
and service via certified mail and that service by publication, while not likely to be successful, is
the sole remaining option. Although Plaintiff might not have taken every conceivable action, its
conduct demonstrates that it followed up on information it possessed or could have reasonably
obtained, and that its efforts will meet the constitutional requirements of due process. See
Modan, 327 N.J. Super. at 48–49; accord Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314–15. Accordingly, the Court
will allow Plaintiff to effectuate service upon Defendants by publication.
B. Enlargement of Time to Serve Defendants
Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time to serve Defendants, the deadline currently
being April 14, 2016. Pursuant to the December 1, 2015 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m), a party must serve the defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed or “the
court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action
without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time;
provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit has stated that “determination of whether to extend time involves a two-step
inquiry. The district court first determines whether good cause exists for a plaintiff’s failure to
effect timely service. If good cause exists, the extension must be granted. If good cause does not
exist, the district court must consider whether to grant a discretionary extension of time. . . .In
determining whether good cause exists, a court’s primary focus is on the plaintiff’s reasons for not
6
complying with the time limit in the first place[.]” Boley v. Kaymark, 123 F.3d 756, 758 (3d Cir.
1997) (citations omitted). The good cause prong requires that “a plaintiff demonstrate good faith
and some reasonable basis for noncompliance with the time specified in the rules.” House v.
H.U.D., NO. CIV. 05-3811, 2006 WL 3779762 *7 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2006) (citing MCI
Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (3d Cir. 1995)). Thus, when
determining whether or not good cause exists, the Court should assess, among other things, “the
reasonableness of plaintiff’s efforts to serve,” and “whether the plaintiff moved for an enlargement
of time to serve.” Pilone v. Basik Funding, Inc., NO. CIV. 05-3798, 2007 WL 203958 * 2 (D.N.J.
Jan. 24, 2007).
In this case, good cause exists to grant Plaintiff’s requested relief. The Court has already
found that Plaintiff demonstrated due diligence in its attempts to serve Defendants, and has been
unable to serve Defendants, not through any fault or lack of effort on Plaintiff’s part. The Court
has also found that Plaintiff has acted reasonably in light of the circumstances.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff shall have until September 13, 2016 to serve Defendants.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to effectuate substitute service is
granted and Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to serve Defendants is granted. Plaintiff will
be permitted until September 13, 2016 to serve Defendants.
However, the Court respectfully disagrees with the details of the service that Plaintiff
proposes. Plaintiff proposes to publish notice only once in The Star Ledger, and once in the Las
Vegas-Review Journal. Publishing the notice once in each publication makes it even less likely
that Defendants will read it. Accordingly, the Court will require Plaintiff to publish the notice in
each of The Star Ledger and the Las Vegas-Review Journal once per week for three weeks. Three
7
weeks in each periodical appears to exceed the minimum requirements of Rule 4:4-5(a)(3).
However, the Court is satisfied that it represents a fair and reasonable effort to provide Defendants
notice of the litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1655.
Additionally, consistent with Rule 4:4-5(a)(3), the Court will require Plaintiff to mail, via
regular and certified mail, a copy of the Complaint to Defendants at their three last known
addresses. Although Plaintiff’s motion papers suggest this undertaking may be futile, the Court
finds good cause for it in ensuring the greatest possibility that Defendants will receive notice of
the suit and afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The Court shall issue an order consistent with this opinion.
s/Michael A. Hammer
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: July 5, 2016
8
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?