ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Permit Alternative Mail Service or for Additional Time to Attempt Process Service, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case No. C17-0250RSL
RUNGTHIP SUWANCHOTE, 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. # 29. 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 defendant
Brenden Peterson. There is evidence that the named defendant resides at, or is associated
with, the address identified by the ISP and used by the process server. In addition, the
named defendant has declined to respond to a voice message or call the process server at
the number provided. All of the prerequisites for allowing service by mail are therefore
satisfied, and there is reason to believe that service by mail will effectively notify
defendant of the claims against him.
ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE BY MAIL - 1
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 defendant Peterson at his address.
Dated this 21st 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?