Opinion ID: 2737915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant Schcolnik

Text: We apply a “de novo standard to the law and a clear error standard to any findings of fact” when reviewing a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5). Prewitt Enters., Inc. 4 Case: 13-14085 Date Filed: 09/29/2014 Page: 5 of 17 v. Org. of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 353 F.3d 916, 920 (11th Cir. 2003). In assessing the validity of service of process, “the standards of proof governing motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction” are applicable. Lowdon PTY Ltd. v. Westminster Ceramics, LLC, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2008); see also Baragona v. Kuwait Gulf Link Transp. Co., 594 F.3d 852, 855 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (noting that proper service of process is one of the components of personal jurisdiction). Under Rule 12(b)(5), a defendant may bring a motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. A plaintiff must serve the summons and a copy of the complaint on each defendant within 120 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (m). An individual defendant may be served in a number of ways, including pursuant to state law for serving a summons in an action in a court of general jurisdiction, or, as is relevant here, by “leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B). Like its federal counterpart, Florida permits service of process by leaving a copy at the person’s “usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents.” Fla. Stat. § 48.031(1)(a). After several failed attempts to serve Schcolnik, Kammona found what he believed was Schcolnik’s residential address and attempted to effect service by 5 Case: 13-14085 Date Filed: 09/29/2014 Page: 6 of 17 leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with a person at that address. However, Schcolnik argued that he did not reside at the address where Kammona attempted service. Before the district court, Kammona offered no evidence to support his assertion that, at the time of service, Schcolnik resided at the address served. In contrast, the district court noted that Schcolnik “specifically describe[d] how the service of process fail[ed] to meet the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4” and, importantly, provided affidavits to support his position. The district court concluded that Kammona had not comported with the requirements of either the federal rules or the Florida statute governing service. Regardless of whether Kammona put forth substantial effort in serving Schcolnik, none of his methods succeeded in properly serving the complaint. While pro se pleadings are afforded some leniency, they must still conform to procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Kammona’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process with regard to Schcolnik.