Case 8:15-cv-00723-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 4

FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlOUiRICT OF MARYLAND
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Sou/Item

2015 AUG 28 A I(): 02

DiIoi.\1ou

. BRETT KIMBERLIN,

CLERK'S OFFIC::
AT GREENBELT
BY
"Ci'li rv

Plaintiff,

Case No.: G.JH-15-00723

\',

HUNTON & WILLIAMS,

et al.,

*
*

Defendants,

*
*

70

ORDER
Pursuant to Maryland
Motion for Alternative

Service on Defendants

36. For the reasons explained

PlaintifTBrett

Rules 2-121(b) and 2-122.l'laintiffl3rett

commenced

'12. Aller PlaintitTattempted

representing

Defendant

to serve Defendant

Berico Technologies

at the address PlaintitThad

live there, /"- I'laintitTasked

addresses

for Delendants

attorneys

that I'laintitTsent

on March 16.2015,
Aaron Barr. Bill

to Defendant

but it is not clear where PlaintitTsent

Ryan at Berico Technologies.

called PlaintitTand

!d. Similarly.

longer worked at Berico Tcchnologies.

occupant

motion.

service on Defendants

and Pat Ryan. See EC!' No, 36. The envelope

was returned or refused as "unclaimed:'

I'laintilrs

this action against Defendants

Eel' No. I. Plaintiff has not been able to effectuate

Nickless.

for Defendant
representing

Barr. Nickless.

has liled a

Aaron Barr. Bill Nickless. and Pat Ryan. lOCI' No.

bclow. the Court DENIES

Kimberlin

Kimberlin

Nickless

the em'elope.

!d at

an allorney

stated that Defendant

Ryan no

Plaintiff received a phone call from an

Barr. notifying

PlaintilTthat

the other Detendants

Mr. Barr did not

if they could provide

and Ryan and was told that they did not know where

Case 8:15-cv-00723-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 4

the Defendants

were located. Id. at'i 3. Plaintiff has also posted a not icc on a blog that Plaintiff

purports to bc "visited regularly

All ofPlaintilrs
unsuccessful.

by defendants

attcmpts

and attorneys

to serve Defendants

See id Plaintiff asserts that Dcfendants

scrvice and requests that the Court eithcr consider

or permit Plaintiff to serve the Defendants
representing

those employers:

and Berico Technologies

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(I).

BaIT. Nickless.

in this ease:'

Id. at ,; 4.

and Ryan have becn

Barr. Nicklcss. and Ryan havc e\'aded

these Defendants

served as ofa specific datc

through thcir last known cmployers

PNNL f(lr Defendant

f(lr Defendant

involved

Nickless:

Greg Hoglund

or attorneys
lor Dcfendant

Barr:

Ryan. Id. at 3.
service may be made according

to the rules of the state

where the district court is located. Md. Rule 2-121 gO\'CI'ns service of process in Maryland
provides:
(a) Generally.
Serviee of process may be made \\'ithin this State or. \\'hen
authorized by the law of this State. outside of this State (1) by delivering to the
person to be served a eopy of the summons. eomplaint. and all other papers filed
with it: (2) if the person to be served is an individual. by leaving a copy of the
summons. complaint. and all other papers filed with it at the individual's dwelling
house or usual place of abode with a resident of suitable age and discretion: or (3)
by mailing to the person to be served a copy of the summons. complaint. and all
other papers filed with it by certified mail requesting: "Restrieted Delivery--show
to whom. date. address of delivery."
Service by certified mail under this Rule is
complete upon delivery.
Service outside of the State may also be made in the
manner prescribed
by the court or prescribed
by the foreign jurisdietion
if
reasonably ealculated to give actualnotiee.
(b) Evasion of Service. When proof is made by affidavit that a defendant has
aeted to evade serviee. the court may order that serviee be madc by mailing a
copy of the summons.
complaint.
and all other papers filed with it to the
defendant at the defendant"s last known residence and delivering a copy of each
to a person of suitable age and discretion at the plaee of business of the defendant.
(e) By Order of Court. When proof is made by al1idavit that good f:lith efforts to
serve the defendant pursuant to seetion (a) of this Rule have not suceeeded and
that service pursuant to section (b) of this Rule is inapplieable or impraeticable.
the court may order any other means of service that it deems appropriate in the
circumstanecs and reasonably calculated to give aetualnotice.

and

Case 8:15-cv-00723-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 4

(d) Methods Not Exclusive. The mcthods of service providcd in this Rule arc in
addition to and not exclusivc of any other means of service that may be provided
by statute or rule for obtaining jurisdiction over a defendant.
Md. Rule 2-121.
Hcre, Plaintiff has attemptcd
places of business or residence,
Maryland.

Instead. notice satislies

those affected'

substitutes:"

Delendants

do not reasonably

Corp. \'. TOIl'n olFores/

In this case, PlaintifThas

permit such notice, ...

the Ii.mn chosen

Heigh/s, 739 F.3d 140. 146 (4th Cir. 2(14)

not demonstrated

a diligent em)rt to identify

or places of employment.

one attempt to send notice to Delendant

where the notice was sent. Id at

representing

other Defendants

PlaintifThas

not articulated

'i 2.

Furthermore.

Nickless,

See ECF No, 36.

but was unclear

aside from calling attorneys

and posting on a website that Defendants

efti.1I1s made to identilyaddresses

mayor

may not visit.

in which Delendants

Barr,

and Ryan can be served. Id at ~~ 3-4. Belore the Court will lind that Delendants

Nickless. and Ryan have evaded all forms of service such that alternati\'e
2-121(b)

certain to inli.mn

less likely to bring home notice than other of the feasible and customary

Plaintiff only described

Nickless.

in

to effect actual notice. Actual notice is not necessary.

Barr's and Ryan's current residences

regarding

at thcir last known

due process that "must not be a mere gesture.

due process where it either 1) 'is in itself reasonably

Snider/I1I'/

omitted),

protected

calculated

or 2) 'where conditions

is not substantially

three Defendants

but has failed to exhaust methods of service permitted

Notice is a constitutionally

but rather an effort reasonably

(citations

to scrve each ofthesc

is warranted,

PlaintitTmust

exhaust all generafmethods

service under Md. Rule

of service under Md, Rule 2-

121 (a). If it becomes clear that the general methods of service are all ineffective.
renew his motion fi.)ralternativc
Accordingly.

service detailing

his additional

Barr.

Plaintilf can

eflol1s to serve the Defendants.

it is this 28th day of August 2015, by the United States District Court 11.)1'

the District of Maryland.

ORDERED

that:

Case 8:15-cv-00723-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 4

1. Plaintiffs Motion for Alternative Service on Defendants Aaron Barr, Bill Nickless, and
Pat Ryan (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff is directed to attempt to serve Defendants Barr, Nickless, and Ryan pursuant to
Md. Rule 2-121(a).
3. Should those efforts fail, PlaintifTis permitted to renew his motion.

Ad--

George Jarrod Hazel

United States District Judge