UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DANA GLENN, 

 Plaintiff, CIV. NO. 15-10270 

 v. HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

NASSCOND, INC., NOTES FOREVER 

INC., NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE CO., 

NATIONAL CITY BANK, KONDAUR 

CAPITAL CORP., OUMROW SINGH, 

NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE 

SERVICES CO., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATE SERVICE (DKT. 19) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUESTS FOR CLERK’S ENTRIES OF DEFAULT (DKTS. 45, 46, 48) 

 This case concerns a mortgage on a condominium owned by Plaintiff Dana 

Glenn (“Plaintiff”). Essentially, Plaintiff claims that the mortgage on her condo was 

assigned between Defendants and that those assignments were faulty and should 

be set aside. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims that certain mortgage payments that 

she made to Defendants should be refunded to her, due to the alleged defects in the 

mortgage assignments. Plaintiff’s Complaint also requests an accounting of her 

mortgage payments to Defendants (Dkt. 1, Ex. 1) and injunctive relief. Specifically, 

she is seeking an order prohibiting Defendants from commencing any mortgage 

foreclosure proceedings. Id. Finally, Plaintiff seeks money damages from 

Defendants. Id. 

4:15-cv-10270-TGB-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 02/16/16 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 335
2 

I. Background 

To summarize, Plaintiff alleges that the first mortgage1 on her property was 

originated by “National City Mortgage Services, Co.” in December 2002 (Dkt. 1, Ex. 

1 ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleges that this mortgage was transferred as follows: National 

City Mortgage Services Co. (Jan. 15, 2003)  National City Mortgage Co. (Dkt. 1, 

Ex. 1 ¶ 11). Then, the following transfers appear on the Wayne County Register of 

Deeds: National City Mortgage Services Co. (which in Dec. 2006 had become, by 

merger, National City Bank) (June 24, 2009)  Kondaur Capital Corp. (Aug. 30, 

2012)  Nasscond, Inc. (unknown date)  Notes Forever, Inc. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 11-

17). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Singh is the “principal” of Defendants 

Nasscond and Notes Forever. Id. at ¶ 17. 

So far as the Court can surmise, the crux of Plaintiff’s Complaint relates to a 

broken chain of title between “National City Mortgage Services, Co.” and “National 

City Mortgage Co.” Specifically, Plaintiff appears to allege that the transfer on 

June 24, 2009 from “National City Mortgage Services, Co.” to Kondaur Capital 

Corp. is null and void, because “National City Mortgage Services, Co.” had 

previously transferred the mortgage to “National City Mortgage, Co.” and, thus, the 

“Services” company had nothing left to transfer to Kondaur. 

 Most pertinent to the present posture of this case, Plaintiff experienced 

difficulties serving process on three Defendants – Oumrow Roy Singh, Nasscond, 

Inc. and Notes Forever, Inc. (the “Nasscond Defendants”). As a result, Plaintiff 

                                                            

1 Plaintiff’s condo is also subject to a second mortgage that is not at issue in this litigation. 

4:15-cv-10270-TGB-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 02/16/16 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 336
3 

filed a motion for alternate service (Dkt. 19). In this motion, Plaintiff states that 

the address for each of these Defendants is 199 Nassau, Roosevelt, New York 

11575 (Dkt. 19 at 2). Plaintiff states her previous attorney send the summons and 

complaint via certified mail to these addresses on November 11, 2014 and again on 

December 5, 2014. Id. ¶ 2-3. The November mailing went “unclaimed” and the 

December mailing was “refused.” Plaintiff also attached affidavits from a process 

server evidencing several attempts in January 2015 to personally serve the 

Nasscond Defendants. The Affidavit reads as follows: 

ADDRESS PROVIDE (sic) IS A FENCED AND GATED PROPERTY WHICH 

APPEARS TO BE A RESIDENCE. ATTEMPTS FOR PERSONAL IN HAND 

SERVICE WERE MADE ON 1/2/15 @ 10:10AM, 1/3/15 @ 6:25PM, 1/5/15 @ 

7:15AM, 1/8/15 @ 3:30PM, 1/10/15 @ 9:10PM, 1/13/15 @ 8:06AM AND 1/13/15 

@ 7:10PM, BUT NO ONE WAS FOUND AT THIS LOCATION ON ANY 

ATTEMPTS. I SPOKE WITH EMPLOYEES AT THE UNIVERSAL BARBER 

SHOP (A NEIGHBOR) WHO STATED THAT THEY BELIEVE THE 

PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. I ALSO SPOKE WITH 

INDIVIDUALS AT THE MUSLIM TEMPLE (NEIGHBOR ON OTHER 

SIDE) WHO ALSO STATED THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONE IS 

CURRENTLY USING THE GIVEN ADDRESS (Dkt. 19, Ex. 3). 

It is unclear in the record before the Court where Plaintiff obtained the Roosevelt, 

New York address for the Nasscond Defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for alternate 

service claims that this address is listed as an “address for notice” in the mortgage 

at issue in this litigation (Dkt. 19 ¶ 1). However, the assignment purporting to 

transfer Plaintiff’s mortgage to Defendant Nasscond lists Nasscond’s address as – 2 

West 4th Street, Freeport, New York, 11520 (Dkt. 1, Ex. 1, Attch. 5). 

 The Court held a status conference in this case on November 13, 2015, in 

which the Court indicated that it was inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion for 

4:15-cv-10270-TGB-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 02/16/16 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 337
4 

alternate service. Furthermore, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion on 

December 3, 2015 during which the Court again indicated that it was inclined to 

grant Plaintiff’s motion. Specifically, the following exchange appears in the 

transcript: 

THE COURT: Now you previously asked for the authority to use alternate 

means of service and I do think there's a sufficient ground to allow you to do 

alternate means of service because you've indicated that you have tried to 

affect service on Mr. Singh and on Notes Forever and you've been unable to 

do that. Is that right? 

MS. GLENN: Yes, that's correct and I will add that I did, umm, I mailed 

service, the claim and summons to Nasscond and the other two entities or I'm 

sorry, Notes Forever, Inc., and Mr. Singh on the 15th of November, I think 

the Sunday after we had the telephone conference. 

THE COURT: You mailed it just by regular mail? 

MS. GLENN: Correct. I thought that's -- correct. I think that's what you 

requested. (Dkt. 47 at 26). 

The Court had not, however, entered an order formally granting Plaintiff’s motion 

for alternate service. In the lieu of such an order, Plaintiff went ahead and mailed 

the summons and complaint to the Nasscond Defendants. The Nasscond 

Defendants did not answer the complaint. Thus, Plaintiff applied for – and received 

– clerk’s entries of default again the Nasscond Defendants (Dkts. 36, 37, 38). Those 

entries of default are hereby set aside, pending service on the Nasscond Defendant 

as outlined below. Finally, Plaintiff also filed a number of requests for the clerk to 

enter default for a “sum certain” ($22,030.59) (Dkts. 44, 45, 46). The Court denied 

these requests, pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion for alternate service. 

4:15-cv-10270-TGB-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 02/16/16 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 338
5 

II. Discussion 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides that “an individual – other 

than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed –may 

be served in a judicial district of the United States by following state law for serving 

a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction.” The Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, accordingly, provide that state law is the guide for serving 

notice to Defendants. Michigan Court Rule 2.105(I)(1) states that “[o]n a showing 

that service of process cannot reasonably be made as provided by this rule, the court 

may by order permit service of process to be made in any other manner reasonably 

calculated to give the defendant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity 

to be heard.” New York, where the Nasscond Defendants are allegedly located, has 

a similar rule for alternate service.2

 As previously indicated by the Court during the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion 

for alternate service (Dkt. 47), Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to be 

permitted to serve the Nasscond Defendants by alternate means. Thus, Plaintiff’s 

motion for alternate service (Dkt. 19) will be granted. However, Plaintiff’s alternate 

previous service attempts – regular mail to the Roosevelt, New York address only – 

are not sufficient. As previously indicated, the assignment of Plaintiff’s mortgage to 

                                                            

2 As regards natural persons, CPLR § 308(5) allows service to be made “in such manner as the court, 

upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of 

this section.” As regards corporations, CPLR § 311(b) allows for service, where it is “impracticable” 

under subsection (a)(1) of the article, “to be made in such manner ... as the court, upon motion 

without notice, directs.” Both provisions empower the court to devise an alternative means of serving 

the summons where the plaintiff has demonstrated that service cannot be made by a statutorily 

prescribed method. See Snyder v. Alternate Energy Inc., 19 Misc. 3d 954, 959, 857 N.Y.S.2d 442, 446 

(Civ. Ct. 2008). 

4:15-cv-10270-TGB-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 02/16/16 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 339
6 

Defendant Nasscond listed an address in Freeport, New York for Nasscond. 

Furthermore, the Court located a December 2014 bankruptcy filing in the Eastern 

District of New York for an “Oumrow R. Singh,” that listed a residential address of 

19 Raymond Court, Garden City, New York, 11530. See E.D.N.Y. Bankr. Case 

No. 8-14-75357. A previous May 2011 bankruptcy filing for an “Oumrow R. Singh” 

listed the same last four digits of the debtor’s social security number (3116) as the 

2014 bankruptcy and listed the Roosevelt, New York address as the debtor’s 

address. See E.D.N.Y. Bankr. Case No. 8-11-73224. Since the last four social 

security numbers are the same in both bankruptcy cases, it is likely that it is the 

same “Oumrow R. Singh” in both cases. It further appears that the Garden City, 

New York address is a more current address for Mr. Singh, as this address was 

listed in Mr. Singh’s 2014 bankruptcy. Plaintiff thus is directed to issue new 

summonses3, and serve the Nasscond Defendants by First Class U.S. Mail to: (1) 

the Roosevelt, New York address; (2) the Freeport, New York address; and (3) the 

Garden City, New York address. 

Finally, as noted earlier, Plaintiff filed requests for “sum certain” default 

judgments against the Nasscond Defendants. However, the relief requested in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1, Ex. 1) is not for a sum certain. Rather, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint requests injunctive relief (precluding Defendants from foreclosing on 

                                                            

3 The prior summonses for the Nasscond Defendant were issued on January 28, 2015. Thus, the 

time to serve those summonses has expired, as a summons in only valid for 90 days after issuance. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Court, however, can extend the time-period for service for “good cause.” 

Plaintiff has shown good cause to extend the time-period for service. Plaintiff shall have an 

additional 30-days from the date of this order to serve the Nasscond Defendants by regular mail to 

the three addresses listed in this order. 

4:15-cv-10270-TGB-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 02/16/16 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 340
7 

Plaintiff’s condo), ordering an accounting, and a money judgment “in excess of 

Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars.” Id. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the Clerk 

to enter a default judgment in a sum certain amount pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(b)(1). If the Nasscond Defendants fail to respond to the Complaint after Plaintiff 

serves them as outlined above, then Plaintiff may then file a motion for entry of 

default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), and the Court will schedule a 

hearing in this matter to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to a default 

judgment against the Nasscond Defendants and, if so, what type of relief that 

judgment should award. 

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for alternate service (Dkt. 19) 

is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to request new summonses, 

and serve the complaint – along with a copy of this order – on the Nasscond 

Defendants by First Class U.S. Mail to: (1) the Roosevelt, New York address; (2) 

the Freeport, New York address; and (3) the Garden City, New York address. 

Plaintiff’s requests for entry of “sum certain” default judgments are hereby 

DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 16, 2016 

4:15-cv-10270-TGB-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 02/16/16 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 341
8 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on February 16, 

2016, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party. 

 By: s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

 

4:15-cv-10270-TGB-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 02/16/16 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 342