Wigley v. Receivable Management Group Inc et al
Filing
19
ORDER granting 9 and 13 Defendant James Roger Seymour's Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons and Amended Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons and quashing the Affirmation of Service [docket no. 4] (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 5/12/2017. (ks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTINE WIGLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC. and JAMES ROGER
SEYMOUR d/b/a RECEIVABLE
MANAGEMENT GROUP,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-17-360-M
ORDER
Before the Court are the Special Appearance of Defendant James Roger Seymour and
Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons and Amended Special Appearance of Defendant
James Roger Seymour and Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons, both filed May 1,
2017. On May 1, 2017, plaintiff filed her responses, and on May 8, 2017, defendant James Roger
Seymour (“Seymour”) filed his reply. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its
determination.
On March 31, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant action against defendants and summons were
issued.
The Summons to Seymour was issued to “JAMES ROGER SEYMOUR d/b/a
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT GROUP c/o CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY D/B/A
CSC-LAWYERS INCO (Registered Agent)”. Summons in Civil Action [docket no. 2] at 1. On
April 5, 2017, plaintiff filed an Affirmation of Service indicating that true and correct copies of
the summons and complaint in this action were duly served upon Seymour, and a copy of a United
States Postal Service Certified Mail Return Receipt signed by Chris Saizan was attached to the
affirmation. See Affirmation of Service [docket no. 4]. Seymour now moves this Court to quash
the purported service of the summons and complaint on him. Specifically, Seymour asserts that
the purported proof of service is improper and does not meet the standards for service required by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff contends that Seymour has waived any objection to service by entering an
appearance in this case and/or moving for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading.1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 provides that objections to service of process “must be raised
in a party’s first responsive pleading or by motion before the responsive pleading.” United States
v. 51 Pieces of Real Prop., Roswell, N.M., 17 F.3d 1306, 1314 (10th Cir. 1994). Further, the Tenth
Circuit has held that an initial appearance and a motion for extension of time are not responsive
pleadings that waive the defense of insufficient service of process. See id. Accordingly, the Court
finds that Seymour has not waived his insufficient service of process objection.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides:
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
Plaintiff also contends that Seymour waived any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) defense
(insufficient service of process) by omitting it from his original motion and including it only in his
amended motion. While Seymour did not specifically reference Rule 12(b)(5) in his original
motion, he clearly raised insufficient service of process as the primary basis for his motion to quash
in his original motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Seymour has not waived insufficient
service of process as a defense.
1
2
(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). Further, the Oklahoma statute regarding service provides, in pertinent part:
Service shall be made as follows:
(1)
upon an individual other than an infant who is less than
fifteen (15) years of age or an incompetent person, by
delivering a copy of the summons and of the petition
personally or by leaving copies thereof at the person’s
dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person
then residing therein who is fifteen (15) years of age or older
or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the petition
to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service of process, . . . .
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2004(C)(1)(c)(1).
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that a copy of the summons and the complaint were not
delivered personally to Seymour or left at Seymour’s dwelling or usual place of abode with
someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there. Additionally, it is undisputed that there
is no agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on behalf of
Seymour. Further, the Court finds the service agent for defendant Receivable Management Group,
Inc. is not authorized to receive service of process on behalf of individual defendant Seymour.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Seymour has not been properly served and that the purported
service of summons and complaint on Seymour should be quashed.
The Court, therefore, GRANTS Seymour’s Motion to Quash Purported Service of
Summons and Amended Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons [docket nos. 9 and 13]
and QUASHES the Affirmation of Service [docket no. 4].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2017.
3
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?