ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 36 Motion to Permit Alternative Mail Service, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Defendant Josh Kinne via USPS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case No. C17-0182RSL
DYLAN BOGERT, et al.,
ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Permit Alternative
Mail Service or for Additional Time to Attempt Process Service.” Dkt. # 36. Federal Rule
of Procedure 4(e)(1) allows plaintiff to effect service “pursuant to the law of the state in
which the district is located.” Washington law authorizes service by mail upon a showing
that (a) defendant has made reasonably diligent efforts at personal service (Rodriguez v.
James-Jackson, 127 Wn. App. 139, 140 (2005)), and (b) defendant resides in the state but
has concealed herself in order to avoid service of process (RCW 4.28.100(4)).
Plaintiff has made multiple unsuccessful attempts to personally serve defendants
Barbara Whalen and Claudia Fodor. On at least one attempt for each defendant, there is
evidence from which one could reasonably conclude that the residence was occupied but
that the residents refused to answer the door. A review of public records shows that the
named defendants reside at, or are associated with, the addresses identified by the ISP and
used by the process server. All of the prerequisites for allowing service by mail are
therefore satisfied, and there is reason to believe that service by mail will effectively
ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE BY MAIL - 1
notify defendants of the claims against them.
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may, therefore, accomplish service by
depositing copies of the summons, complaint, and this Order in the United States Post
Office directed to defendants Whalen and Fodor at their respective addresses.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2017.
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE BY MAIL - 2
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?