Opinion ID: 586834
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Wrights

Text: 9 After the transfer to the Northern District of New York, Buggs made no attempt to re-serve the Wrights. Relying upon Bentz v. Recile, 778 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir.1985), Buggs contends that he was not required to re-serve the Wrights because the original service of process put the Wrights on notice of his claim against them and that further service would be superfluous. 10 In Bentz, the defendants were Louisiana residents from whom the plaintiff sought recovery on promissory notes. The action was brought in Mississippi state court after service on the defendants under Mississippi's long-arm statute. It was then removed to the district court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which held the long-arm statute unconstitutional as applied in that case. The Mississippi district court, finding that it lacked in personam jurisdiction, transferred the action to the Eastern District of Louisiana, which entered judgment for the plaintiff. The question that principally occupied the Fifth Circuit's attention on appeal was the legality of the transfer, which the court upheld as authorized under either 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or § 1406(a). In a footnote, the court addressed the problem of ineffective service based on the plaintiff's failure, as in the instant matter, to re-serve the defendants after the case had been transferred to Louisiana. The footnote stated in pertinent part: 11 The defendants have received all the notice service of process is designed to give [under the Mississippi long-arm statute]. While the better practice is to re-serve defendants after a case is transferred from a federal district court lacking in personam jurisdiction, a remand to the district court to allow such reservice in this case would, to this Court, be merely a useless act and a waste of judicial resources. 12 Bentz, 778 F.2d at 1028-29 n. 5. However, in the same footnote, the court stated, We emphasize, however, that 'the act of transfer, in and of itself, [does not] cure any defect in service or cause previously unperfected jurisdiction to attach.'  Id. (quoting Stewart Coach Indus., Inc. v. Moore, 512 F.Supp. 879 (S.D. Ohio 1981) (emphasis in original)). 13 We confess some puzzlement over Bentz. There was nothing in that case, so far as we can determine, other than the transfer that in and of itself cured the constitutionally defective service under the Mississippi long-arm statute. The key to the puzzle may be the court's observation in the same footnote that there were neither statute of limitations nor choice of law problems in the case. Id. Bentz appears, therefore, to say only that where the defendant receives notice of an action through a defective service but an effective re-service will not alter the outcome of a case on the merits (liability in Bentz on the promissory notes being clear), a court will not reverse on the ground of defective service. Although our case is easily distinguishable--there appears to be a substantial statute of limitations problem that might well affect the outcome--we add the cautionary note that attorneys practicing in this circuit would be wise to comply with Rule 4 rather than rely upon harmless error analysis. Were this panel faced with the Bentz problem, we would find the service defective. 14 As noted, Buggs' original attempt at service of process from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was defective under both Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii) and under Pennsylvania law. Because there had been no effective service on any of the appellees as of the date the case was transferred to the Northern District of New York, Buggs was obligated to effect service in the new forum. 15 Buggs argues that the Wrights' failure to return the acknowledgement of service did not void the service by mail under Rule 4 after the case was transferred to the Northern District of New York. With regard to compliance with Rule 4(c)(2)(C)(ii), Buggs relies heavily on Morse v. Elmira Country Club, 752 F.2d 35 (2d Cir.1984). In Morse, the defendant was served by certified mail under Rule 4(c)(2)(C)(ii) before the statute of limitations had run. The defendant refused to return the acknowledgement of service, and personal service was effected only after the statute of limitations had run. Unlike the present case, the defendant in Morse was a resident of the state in which the action was originally filed. The service in Morse was thus in full compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii). We held only that the defendant's failure to return the acknowledgement form did not render the action time-barred because the personal service necessitated by that failure was not effectuated until after the statute of limitations had run. As we noted, [p]laintiff's actions in this case conformed with [the] exact requirements of [Rule 4(c)(2)(C)(ii) ], and all the necessary steps were complete ... prior to the statute of limitations deadline. Morse, 752 F.2d at 39. In such circumstances, we held that it would be inequitable to allow the defendant's failure to acknowledge receipt of the summons and complaint to result in a time-bar. Id. at 40. 16 However, in the present action, Buggs' original attempts failed to effect service under either Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii) or under the law of the forum state, Pennsylvania. The original service on the Wrights was thus ineffective for reasons other than the failure to return the acknowledgment of service, and Morse does not apply. Moreover, the personal service required when an acknowledgement of service is not returned was never effected.