Plaintiff Provided Additional Opportunities To Complete Service

In the case of Chanthanasinh v. LZ Holding Pennsylvania, LLC, No. 1500-CV-2022 (C. P. Monroe Co. April 5, 2024 Zulick, J.), the court denied a Preliminary Objection by a Defendant regarding service of process issues. The court otherwise ordered the Plaintiff to obtain service of the Complaint on the Defendants if that had not yet been accomplished. The court additioanly noted that, if the Plaintiff is unable to complete service within sixty (60) days, the Plaintiff was ordered to file a Motion for Special Service.

This matter arose out of a slip and fall incident.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had attempted service on the owner of the hotel premises through the Sheriff on multiple occasions. However, it was later established during a hearing on the issues presented that the named Defendant in this case was not the owner at the time some individual had accepted service of the process earlier in the case.

In an effort to show diligent efforts to advise the Defendant of the incident in the lawsuit, the Plaintiff offered evidence that he and his family had communicated with representatives of the hotel on multiple occasions regarding the incident and medical bills. It was also noted that Plaintiff’s counsel had sent correspondence, by certified mail, to the hotel manager regarding the incident and the injuries alleged. At the hearing, it was acknowledged that the representatives of the hotel had received counsel’s letter.

It was additionally indicated that Plaintiff’s counsel had corresponded with an insurance company that was allegedly the Defendant’s workers’ compensation carrier, including providing that company with the copy of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff’s counsel also pointed to the multiple efforts to have the Sheriff’s office complete service.

In this case, the court noted that the Defendant has admittedly known for a extended period of time that the Plaintiff had filed suit against them. The court also found that the Plaintiff acted diligently and made good faith efforts to have service completed by the Sheriff’s Department. The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff had properly relied upon a Sheriff’s Affidavit that good service had been obtained.

As such, the court denied the Preliminary Objection based upon lack of proper service and directed the Plaintiff to take additional steps to fully complete service of process.

In another notable part of his Opinion, Judge Zulick addressed the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff should be made to separate out the claims against the 10 Defendants into separate Counts, one for each Defendant so that the Defendants could respond fully to the claims presented.

Judge Zulick went against the trend of decisions in this regard that typically grant such a request for separate Counts for each Defendant by ruling that, here, that rule did not apply since because the Plaintiff had sued the Defendants jointly, alleging liability jointly, such that separate pleadings or Counts against each Defendant were not necessary.  

The Court noted that, where there is only one cause of action asserted, separate Counts were not necessary.  Here, the Plaintiff alleged negligence as a result of a fall down event and asserted that all of the Defendants were owners of the premises where the accident occurred. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Eastern Federal District Court Gives Lessons in Alternative Service of Process in Federal Court

In the case of Allstate Vehicle and Property Ins. Co. v. Top Line Builders, LLC, No. 2:23-CV-03974-TJS (E.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2023 Savage, J.), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled, in a property damage action pursued by a Plaintiff insurance company, that the Plaintiff’s request to serve a Defendant in an alternative manner by posting a copy of the Summons and the Complaint at its business premises would be denied.

The court noted that, under F.R.C.P. 4(h)(1)(B), a corporation must be served “by delivering a copy of the Summons and of the Complaint to an officer, manager, or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and-if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires-by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant....”

The court additionally noted that, under F.R.C.P. 4(h)(1)(A), a corporation may be served “in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual.” 

In federal court, an individual may be served by either delivering copies of the Summons and the Complaint personally to the Defendant, leaving copies with someone of suitable age who resides at the individual's dwelling or usual place abode, or by delivering copies of the Defendant’s authorized agent. F.R.C.P. 4(e)(2)(A)-(C).

The federal court noted that there is no federal civil rule providing for alternative service. However, under Rule 4(e)(1), any method of service allowed by the state in which the judicial district is located is permitted.

The court noted that, under Pennsylvania State Rule of Civil Procedure 430, alternative service is allowed if the Plaintiff makes a Motion to the Court and secures a special Order allowing for alternative method of service.

The federal court noted that Rule 430 does not explicitly identify the prerequisites for obtaining an Order for alternative service. However, it was noted that the Rule requires the Plaintiff to submit “an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the investigation which has been made to determine the whereabouts of the Defendant and the reasons why service cannot be made.” The federal court noted that, “implicit in this requirement is that the Plaintiff has an obligation to make a good faith effort to locate the Defendant and a practical effort to serve the Defendant.”

In this case, the court found that Allstate failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that it made a practical effort to complete service on the Defendant.

More specifically, the court noted that Allstate had not shown that personal service upon the Defendants could not be made.

According to the Opinion, Allstate searched the Pennsylvania Department of State’s Business Entity database and the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney’s General Licensed Contractor search mechanism. Allstate additionally conducted internet searches and, through these various searches, located a street address for the particular Defendant at issue.

Allstate then attempted service at that street address but could not confirm that the particular Defendant or its primary agent was located at that address.

According to the Opinion, the process servicer retained by Allstate made three (3) attempts to serve the Defendant, all on the same day of the week in different weeks.   It was additionally noted that two (2) of the attempts were made at the same time of day, between the hours of 5 and 8 p.m. The court found that these efforts failed to demonstrate that personal service could not be made.

The court otherwise denied Allstate’s Motion to Serve the Defendant by the Alternative Method of posting a copy of the Summons and the Complaint at the business street address.

The court concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that it had made sufficient practical efforts to serve the Defendant in person. The court noted that the Plaintiff’s efforts to actually locate an address for the Defendant were sufficient, but that the Plaintiff's effort to complete service could have been better given that the Plaintiff had a duty to show that it made practical efforts to complete that service after identifying a location for service.

The federal court stated that, generally, this requires a showing of multiple attempts to effectuate personal service. The court stated that the timing and the days on which the attempts to complete service are made are important factors in determination of whether the attempts at service will be considered to be sufficient.

As noted above, the court found that the Plaintiff’s efforts were insufficient and the Motion for Alternative Service was, therefore, denied.

At the conclusion of its Opinion, the court did not otherwise offer any advice or indication as to how service should be completed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 15, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Arturo D on www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Finds Trial Court Erred in Granting Dismissal For Service of Process Issues

In the case of Chappell v. Powell, No. 253 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Sept. 29, 2023 Bender, P.J.E., Lazarus, J., and Kunselman, J.) (Op. by Lazarus, J.), the court addressed a decision of a trial court sustaining a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and dismissal of a Plaintiff’s Complaint in a motor vehicle accident case due to the Plaintiff’s failure to make good faith efforts to complete service.

After a review of the issues before it, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the trial court.

In its decision, the Superior Court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the Complaint due to a finding a lack of diligent efforts at service of process given that such a decision effectively contradicted the trial court’s prior implicit finding of good faith effort and due diligence when the trial court separately granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 17, 2023).

Court Allows for Alternative Service on Defendant Who Was Evading Service

In the case of Bower v. Bower, No. CV-20-0024 (C.P. Lycoming Co. March 27, 2020 Tira, J.), the court granted a Motion for Alternative Service where the Plaintiff had established that the Defendant was evading service. 

According to the Opinion, six (6) separate service attempts were made by the Sheriff’s Department. It was noted that the Defendant was present on her driveway during one of those attempts and went into her house when she saw the Sheriff’s Deputy approaching, after which the Defendant refused to answer the door. 

The court also noted that there is a prior history of the Plaintiff evading service in a previous action. 

There was also alleged evidence that the Defendant had even attempted to run over a process server. 

The court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Service to instead be served by any adult who was not a party to the action. 

To make sure that the Defendant received actual notice of the pending litigation, the court also required the posting of a copy of the notice and the Complaint on the Defendant’s property. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 12, 2020).