Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Communications Supply Corp. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 21, 2017

COMMUNICATIONS SUPPLY CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE UPON DEFENDANT SONK DATA PRODUCTS, INC. (ECF #9)

          MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff Communications Supply Corporation (“CSC”) filed this action against Defendants Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and Sonk Data Products, Inc. (See Compl., ECF #1.) On April 26, 2017, CSC successfully served Philadelphia Indemnity. (See Certificate of Service, ECF #7.) CSC has not been able to successfully serve Sonk Data Products, Inc. (“Sonk”).

         On May 17, 2017, CSC filed an ex parte motion in which it requests that the Court allow it to serve Sonk via substituted service. (See ECF #9.) In CSC's motion, it explains that it twice attempted to serve Sonk with service of process at Sonk's “registered office address” - which is also the residential address that belongs to Sonk's registered agent Hugh Sonk - but that its process server was unsuccessful. (Id. at ¶2, Pg. ID 63.) In an amended affidavit supporting Sonk's motion, its process server averred that:

On 4/24/17 at 11:50 a.m., I attempted service on [Sonk] at the registered office address, 505 East Huron, Ann Arbor, MI - a residential condominium complex. I spoke with a receptionist in the lobby of the condominium facility. She confirmed that Hugh Sonk lived there and placed a phone call to Mr. Sonk's unit but there was no answer.
[….]
On 5/2/17 at 6:59 p.m., I again attempted service of Mr. Sonk at 505 East Huron, Ann Arbor, MI. Although the lobby was closed, there was an automated phone system on the outside of the building which listed Mr. Sonk as a resident with a corresponding phone number. I called the number listed. A gentleman answered. I asked for Mr. Hugh Sonk. The man asked who was calling. I stated I had some documents for him, and the man replied that Mr. Sonk was not home and hung up.

         (Amended Affidavit of Process Server Greg Reichelt at ¶¶ 1, 3, ECF #10 at Pg. ID 72-73.)

         CSC also attempted to serve Sonk at Sonk's commercial address, but according to CSC's process server, that address was vacant:

On 4/24/17 at 12:50 p.m., I attempted service at the business address of Sonk Data Products, Inc., a/k/a/ Peripheral Vision, 39201 Schoolcraft Road, Suite B14, Livonia, Michigan - the office [was] empty and the business [was] closed. I called the phone number for that office at 855-292-2924. This number [was] no longer in service for this business - it [was] a substance abuse hotline.

(Id. at ¶2, ECF #10 at Pg. ID 72.)

         CSC now seeks the Court's permission to complete service of Sonk by “(i) leaving the [summons and Complaint] with the receptionist at 505 East Huron with instructions to deliver to Mr. Sonk, (ii) [mailing the summons and Complaint by] certified mail to 505 East Huron, return receipt requested, and (iii) [mailing the summons and Complaint by] first class mail to 505 East Huron, in plain white envelopes with no return address.” (Mot. at ¶5, ECF #9 at Pg. ID 63.)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1) provides in relevant part that “a domestic or foreign corporation … must be served ... in a judicial district of the United States in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and - if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires - by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.” In turn, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides that “an individual may be served in a judicial district of the United States by following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Michigan Court Rule 2.105 governs service of process in the State of Michigan. That rule provides in relevant part that process may be served on a resident or non-resident individual by:

1. delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally; or
2. sending a summons and a copy of the complaint by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and delivery restricted to the addressee. Service is made when the defendant acknowledges receipt of the mail. A copy of the return receipt signed by the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.