Opinion ID: 1476400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Superior Court Hearing

Text: During the oral argument on ACC's motion to vacate the default judgment, the Superior Court asked counsel for ACC about the status of the employee who accepted service of the Complaint. That employee, Patricia Frederick, was initially characterized by ACC's counsel as a clerical person and a low-level employee. He then acknowledged that she had been employed by ACC for at least five years and was a leasing agent with duties that included leasing, collecting rents, and doing evictions.... The attorney for ACC also acknowledged that the eviction obligations made her the person responsible for filing lawsuits for unpaid rent, summary possession, and receiving answers to complaints. Nevertheless, ACC's counsel argued that Patricia Frederick was a person . . . not understanding the [legal] system that the filing and the service of the summons and the complaint starts a clock running. Those are facts that she did not comprehend. . . . The Superior Court asked counsel for ACC: How could she not have understood that it was a lawsuit and that it should have been brought to the attention promptly of her boss? The explanation given for Patricia Frederick's conduct by ACC's counsel was that she obviously did not handle the complaint properly because she was a low-level employee. When asked by the Superior Court for affidavits to make a stronger showing why the default judgment should be vacated, ACC's counsel responded that it would require some effort and some research to locate individuals with that knowledge. ACC's counsel also stated that there was not much point in providing the Superior Court with an affidavit from Patricia Frederick.