Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion Digests / E-Service Was Proper, Court Says

E-Service Was Proper, Court Says

A Charlottesville U.S. District Court refuses to reconsider its earlier denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction this lawsuit asserting certain claims arising out of a loan agreement
Defendants seek reconsideration of this court’s order denying their motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants urge that Danik v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, (09-2240, 4th Cir. 2010, unpublished) is determinative. Danik does not provide any reason to reconsider this court’s earlier order.

Unlike in Danik, the plaintiff served defendants with the complete first amended complaint. While the first amended complaint purported to incorporate the loan agreement as an exhibit, plaintiff did not actually attach the loan agreement to its court filing. Plaintiff was not required to serve defendants with the loan agreement, as it was not a constituent part of the complete pleading. Service of the first amended complaint was proper.

In general, the original complaint and summons may not be served electronically. However, courts may provide for electronic service of subsequent pleadings. Under the court’s local rules, a party agrees to service by electronic means when it participates in the court’s CM-ECF system. As defendants participate in CM/ECF, they are deemed to consent to electronic service of process. Therefore, electronic service of the second amended complaint, including the attached loan agreement, was proper.

Defendants’ motion to reconsider will be denied.

Agency Funding LLC v. Fillweber (Moon, J.) No. 3:10dv00027, Jan. 5, 2011; USDC at Charlottesville, Va. VLW 011-3-076, 3 pp.

VLW 011-3-076

Leave a Reply