ME2 Productions Inc v. Doe 1 et al
ORDER granting plaintiff's 25 Second Motion for Leave to Permit Alternative Service, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case No. C17-0466RSL
SIMON POULSON, et al.,
ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Renewed Motion to Permit
Alternative Mail Service or for Additional Time to Attempt Process Service.” Dkt. # 25.
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
Plaintiff has made multiple unsuccessful attempts to personally serve defendant
Pamila Khounmany. 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, residents of the apartment have declined to respond to the door, the named
defendant has declined to contact the process server to arrange service, and it appears that
she is actively avoiding service. All of the prerequisites for allowing service by mail are
ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE BY MAIL - 1
therefore satisfied, and there is reason to believe that service by mail will effectively
notify defendant of the claims against him.
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 Khounmany at her address.
Dated this 7th day of July, 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?