Bruntjen Esq. v. Van Exel

Background

Justin Andrew Bruntjen moved for permission to use an alternative method of serving Raffles Van Exel with the summons and complaint. He proposed mailing the documents in a sealed, postage-paid envelope to Van Exel’s last known home address in Hollywood, California.

A process server attempted personal service at that address five times between August 29 and October 2, 2020, but was unsuccessful. The process server reported that the building was secure and that its directory did not list an occupant for the unit where Bruntjen believed Van Exel lived. Bruntjen’s attorney also mailed the summons, complaint, and a service-waiver form; mailed the documents by certified mail; emailed the documents and waiver form to an address taken from a notice of appearance in another case; and contacted Van Exel’s former attorney. The opinion states that these efforts received no response, although the certified-mail package was marked delivered.

Legal standard and analysis

Because Van Exel is an individual living within the United States, service was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). That rule permits personal delivery, leaving the documents at the person’s dwelling with a suitable resident, delivery to an authorized service agent, or service under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. A plaintiff may also request a waiver of service by mail under Rule 4(d).

The court recognized that several of Bruntjen’s efforts showed diligence. The attempted personal service would have been effective if successful, and the December 30, 2020, mailing appeared to comply with the federal waiver procedure. But the court denied the motion without prejudice because the record did not clearly establish that the Hollywood address was Van Exel’s current residence. The notice of appearance identifying the address was dated July 30, 2020, and the building directory did not connect Van Exel’s name to the unit. The court therefore could not determine whether mailing the documents there would provide adequate notice.

The court also rejected reliance on Minnesota Statutes section 518.11. Bruntjen argued that the statute allowed service by first-class mail or publication, but the court explained that section 518.11 is generally part of Minnesota’s marriage-dissolution laws. Bruntjen had not identified authority showing that the statute applied to this type of case or to service on an out-of-state resident. The court further noted that Bruntjen’s memorandum did not cite controlling or persuasive authority establishing the legal standard for alternative service under these circumstances.

Ruling

The court denied Bruntjen’s motion for alternative service without prejudice, allowing him to refile. If he did so, the court directed him to provide stronger evidence that the proposed address was Van Exel’s current residence, or to request another adequately supported method of alternative service, and to submit a legal memorandum citing supporting authority.

Separately, the court extended the service deadline by 60 days. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service generally must occur within 90 days after filing unless good cause supports an extension. The court found good cause because the process server had made five personal-service attempts during that period. Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order.