Ross v. Gillette Children Hospital

Background

Albert Ross sued Gillette Children Hospital and Ronald McDonald House. Ross proceeded without a lawyer. Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

The defendants argued that Ross’s single service attempt did not include the complaint and that he served individual employees who were not authorized to accept service for either corporate defendant. Ross filed proof-of-service forms for each defendant, but the forms identified only a location and date and did not identify the person served.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that proper service is required for personal jurisdiction—the court’s power over a defendant. For these defendants, service required delivery of both the summons and complaint to an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized by law.

Ross filed the case on August 11, 2023, more than 90 days before the ruling. The court found that his proof-of-service forms were insufficient to show proper service on a corporation. The court also noted that Ross had not responded to either motion, requested a waiver of service, attempted to properly serve either defendant, or given a reason for failing to do so. The court stated that an extension to correct service would require good cause or excusable neglect, and found that Ross had not complied with Rule 4 or provided such a reason.

Ruling

The court granted Ronald McDonald House’s motion to dismiss. It also granted Gillette Children Hospital’s motion to dismiss. Judge Jerry W. Blackwell dismissed Ross’s complaint without prejudice, meaning the order did not state that refiling was barred. The court denied Ross’s motions for default judgment as moot and ordered that judgment be entered.