Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08021/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08021-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joan Perkons,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

American Acceptance, LLC,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8021-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed March 29,

2010, wherein the defendant seeks the dismissal of this action pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) because its registered agent was not sufficiently served

with process. Having considered the parties’ memoranda in light of the record,

the Court finds that the motion should be denied. 

Since the defendant has challenged the sufficiency of service on it, albeit

quite cursorily, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that service was valid

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. A return of service generally serves as prima facie

evidence that service was validly performed. Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d

105, 111 (1st Cir.2008). In support of her contention that the defendant was

validly served, the plaintiff has filed a return of service (doc. #8), wherein the

Case 3:10-cv-08021-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 According to the defendant, the name mixup occurred because when

Swigart asked Autumn her name, she replied “Autumn, why?”

2

 The defendant’s counsel is admonished that setting forth Autumn’s

date of birth in the defendant’s reply is a violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a).

- 2 -

process server, Jayson Swigart, declares that he is at least 18 years old, and that

he personally served the defendant on March 8, 2001 by serving Autumn Wise at

3606A Morris Ave., Suite 114, Pueblo, CO 81008-1369. The plaintiff has also

submitted a declaration (doc. #9-3) from Swigart, dated April 6, 2010, wherein he

states that he entered the defendant’s business address on March 8th at

approximately 12:49 p.m., that he notified the occupant there that he was there to

complete service for a lawsuit involving the defendant and asked if there was

anyone present who could accept service, that the occupant identified herself as

Autumn Wise and informed him that she was able to accept service on the

defendant’s behalf, and that she accepted the service documents without

objection. In its memoranda, the defendant states that its registered agent of

record is Matthew Boddey at 3606A Morris Ave., #114, Pueblo, CO 81008, that

the person with whom Swigart left the service documents is actually named

Autumn Saucedo1

, that she was 17 years old at the time of service2, that she is

home-schooled and suffers from ADHD, that she is not the defendant’s registered

agent and is not authorized to accept service for it. While the defendant has

submitted evidence to substantiate the name and address of its registered agent,

it has not rebutted the plaintiff’s evidence concerning service on Autumn because

it has failed to submit any evidence to substantiate any of its remarks concerning

Autumn; the defendant has also failed to submit any evidence as to when and

how it learned of the existence of this suit. The Court concludes that the plaintiff

Case 3:10-cv-08021-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

 Rule 4(h)(1)(B) provides that a business entity may be served “by

delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing 

or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to

receive service of process[.]”

 The defendant also points out that Swigart stated in his return of service

that he is not a registered process server in Arizona, that there is no evidence

that Swigart is a registered process server in Colorado, and that it appears that

Swigart is related to an attorney in the law firm representing the plaintiff. The

Court concludes that such information is irrelevant to the determination of the

motion to dismiss since Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2) provides that “[a]ny person who is at

least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.”

- 3 -

has met her prima facie burden of showing that the defendant received actual

notice of the complaint and that it was served in substantial compliance with Rule

4.

The defendant, presumably in reliance on Rule 4(h)(1)(B), argues that

service of process was improper because its registered agent was not served.3

 

Since it is undisputed that Autumn is not the defendant’s registered agent, the

issue under Rule 4(h)(1)(B) is whether Autumn can be considered to be an

appropriate agent for service purposes. When there is substantial compliance

with Rule 4, the Court must liberally construe the rule to uphold service in cases,

such as this one, when the defendant has received sufficient notice of the

complaint. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d

1132, 1135 (9th Cir.2009). The undisputed evidence of record is that Autumn was

an occupant in the office suite in which the registered agent was located, that the

process server, Swigart, informed Autumn that he was there to serve a complaint

and asked her who was authorized to accept service, and that Autumn stated that

she was able to accept service and did accept service without complaint. The

Court concludes that Rule 4(h)(1)(B), liberally construed, was sufficiently

Case 3:10-cv-08021-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/08/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 4 -

complied with by Swigart. See e.g., Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat

Computerized Technologies, Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir.1988) (“Despite the

language of the Rule, service of process is not limited solely to officially

designated officers, managing agents, or agents appointed by law for the receipt

of process. The rules are to be applied in a manner that will best effectuate their

purpose of giving the defendant adequate notice. Thus, service can be made

upon a representative so integrated with the organization that he will know what

to do with the papers. Generally, service is sufficient when made upon an

individual who stands in such a position as to render it fair, reasonable and just to

imply the authority on his part to receive service.”) (Internal quotations marks

omitted.) See also, Bender v. Intersil Corp., 2009 WL 2969462, at *2 (N.D.Cal.

Sept. 14, 2009) (“Defendant cannot allow individuals at its offices to represent to

a process server that a particular individual has authority to accept process and

then later complain that service was insufficient.”)

Furthermore, even if the Court were to conclude that Rule 4(h)(1)(B) was

not sufficiently complied with, which it does not, Rule 4 permits service not only in

accordance with the specific methods set forth therein, but also in accordance

with the laws of the state in which the district court sits, here Arizona, or in the

state in which service is made, here Colorado. Rule 4(h)(1)(A). The defendant

has made no effort to discuss whether service was proper under either Arizona or

Colorado law. The Court concludes that the record is at least marginally

sufficient for it to determine that service was sufficient under Colorado law, which

permits service upon a registered agent “at the person’s usual workplace, with

the person’s secretary, administrative assistant, bookkeeper, or managing agent.”

C.R.C.P. 4(e)(1). See In re Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain

Case 3:10-cv-08021-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/08/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 5 -

Properties, LLC, 222 P.3d 310, 317 (Colo.2010) (In upholding the sufficiency of

service under C.R.C.P. 4(e)(1) when process was given to the registered agent’s

assistant who performed administrative duties for him, the court stated that “the

rule provides that service is sufficient if delivery is made to an assistant who

performs clerical duties for the person to be served. The assistant need not work

solely or exclusively for the person to be served. ... Beyond ascertaining that an

employee falls within an appropriate category (“the person’s secretary,

administrative assistant, bookkeeper, or managing agent”), a process server is

not required to determine that the individual will in fact give the papers to the

named individual or agent. Instead, the burden is on the registered agent to put

in place the systems and personnel to make certain that documents reach the

registered agent in a timely manner.”) Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. #7) is denied.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08021-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/08/10 Page 5 of 5