Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00925/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00925-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:825 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993

---

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

JAMILA PHILLIPS PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:06-CV-00925- GTE

CATHIE MATHEWS, individually and

in her official capacity as Director of 

Department of Arkansas Heritage; and 

SHARON HACKER, individually and in

her official capacity as an employee of the 

State of Arkansas; and MIKE HUCKABEE, in 

his official capacity as Governor of the State

of Arkansas DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Quash Service in their Individual Capacities filed by

Separate Defendants Cathie Mathews and Sharon Hacker. Plaintiff Jamila Phillips has

responded to the motion. For good cause shown, the motion will be granted.

For cause, Defendants Cathie Mathews and Sharon Hacker, both of whom have been sued

in their official and individual capacities, have not been properly served in their “individual”

capacities. It appears that both Ms. Mathews and Ms. Hacker were served by certified mail,

return receipt requested at their place of business. Neither Defendant signed the receipt for the

certified mail.

It appears that Defendants have the better argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) governs

service upon individuals. By providing that “service upon an individual . . . may be effected . . .

pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located” the federal rule adopts by

reference the law of Arkansas. Arkansas’ procedural counterpart, Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), states

Case 4:06-cv-00925-BRW Document 18 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

that “[s]ervice shall be made upon . . . an individual, other than an infant by delivering a copy of

the summons and complaint to him personally. (Emphasis added). Arkansas law requires that

when serving an individual by mail, “[s]ervice of a summons and complaint upon a defendant . . .

may be made by the plaintiff or an attorney of record for the plaintiff by any form of mail

addressed to the person to be served with a return receipt requested and delivery restricted to the

addressee or the agent of the addressee. Ark. R. Civ. Pro. 4(d)(8)(A)(i) (emphasis added).

Here, the Complaint and Summons was mailed to both defendants at their place of

business. An individual named Jerusha Schofer signed for service for both Defendants. (Docket

Nos. 7 and 8). Defendants state that this individual is not their agent.

 CONCLUSION

 Because it does not appear that proper service has been effected on either of the Separate

Defendants Mathews and Hacker in their individual capacities, 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Separate Defendants’ Cathie Mathews and

Sharon Hacker’s Motion to Quash Service in their “Individual” Capacities (Docket No. 12) be,

and it is hereby, GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2006.

_/s/ Garnett Thomas Eisele________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 4:06-cv-00925-BRW Document 18 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2