Muy v. Moore

Background

Verit Muy and Mr. Tea, Ltd. asked the court to arrange service of the summons and complaint on Michelle Moore, Michelle Moore, LLC, and Bober Tea Franchises PTE, LTD. The plaintiffs said their process server had not successfully served Michelle Moore, LLC and Bober Tea Franchises PTE, LTD because Michelle Moore, whom they believed was the registered agent for the other defendants, was intentionally avoiding service. A footnote states that the process server believed she had served Michelle Moore but apparently used the wrong summons.

The plaintiffs requested service by a United States marshal or another person appointed by the court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) and 4(e)(1). Alternatively, they asked the court to authorize service by a Missouri sheriff or another court-appointed person.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for service by a United States marshal or another specially appointed person. Rule 4(c)(3) permits such service when the court orders it, and Local Rule 4.1 states that the United States Marshals Service is not required to serve civil process unless required by federal law, the Federal Rules, or a court order based on good cause. The court explained that this procedure is intended for situations in which a law-enforcement presence is needed to keep the peace. The plaintiffs’ request did not suggest that such a presence was necessary, and the court stated that Michelle Moore did not appear to have engaged in threatening behavior.

The court also rejected the request under Rule 4(e)(1), which allows service under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. Although Missouri law permits service by a court-appointed individual, that appointment must follow the federal court’s local rules. Because the plaintiffs had not shown good cause under Local Rule 4.1 or Rule 4(c)(3), the court found that Missouri law did not provide a basis for the requested appointment.

The court declined to authorize service by a Missouri sheriff because Rule 4(e) lists available service methods rather than creating an authorization procedure. Since the plaintiffs had not actually served process through a Missouri sheriff, deciding whether such service would comply with Rule 4 would have required an advisory opinion, which the court could not issue. The court also rejected appointment of an unidentified individual because the plaintiffs did not identify anyone and had not shown good cause. The court noted that all four service attempts had been made at Michelle Moore’s home and that the plaintiffs and their process server had not tried alternative strategies.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ Notice and Request for Service of Summons and Complaint by U.S. Marshal. The order did not decide whether any particular future service by a Missouri sheriff would satisfy Rule 4.