Ace American Insurance v. Meadowlands Developer Ltd. Partnership
140 F. Supp. 3d 450
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Ace obtained a $5.2M arbitration award against Meadowlands Developer LP (MDLP) and filed a Petition to Confirm the award in federal court on March 27, 2013.
- Ace's initial affidavits (April and June 2013) by a process server (Andrew Miller) stated personal service in May 2013 but omitted the place of service; Judge Goldberg found the proofs deficient and ordered Ace either to amend proof or re-serve by August 20, 2013.
- Ace filed an amended affidavit showing U.S. Marshals personally served an entity at 660 Madison Ave., New York (Aug. 14, 2013), identified in the return as "Colony Capital;" Ace argued this constituted service on MDLP’s general partner (MLP).
- Judge Goldberg entered default judgment for Ace on December 6, 2013, based on Ace’s August 2013 proof of service; MDLP later moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing improper service.
- The magistrate judge found (1) the May 2013 service was properly effected on MDLP at Corporation Service Company (the registered agent) and that Ace’s late affidavit cured the earlier defective proof, and (2) the August 2013 service on MLP/Colony Capital at the New York address also constituted valid service on MDLP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ace) | Defendant's Argument (MDLP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MDLP was properly served in May 2013 | Miller personally served MDLP at Corporation Service Company; Ace later filed a corrective affidavit | Proof originally filed was deficient; Judge Goldberg’s order showed May service is unreliable | May 2013 service valid; Judge Goldberg only found the proof deficient, and Ace’s later affidavit cured proof defects |
| Whether the court may consider the May 2013 service after Judge Goldberg relied on August service | Court may consider both services; service is to effect notice, not invite gamesmanship | May service cannot be considered because Judge Goldberg based default on August 2013 service | Court may consider May service; service rules are flexible and technical defects do not void proper service |
| Whether August 2013 service on MLP (general partner) validly served MDLP | Service on MLP at its NY address complied with Rule 4 and state law allowing service on a general partner; Ace reasonably relied on public records listing MLP as general partner | MLP was not MDLP’s general partner at time of service; service actually effected on Colony Capital, a different entity | August 2013 service valid: service on a general partner listed in state records suffices; reliance on public records was reasonable |
| Whether U.S. Marshal’s notation that he served “Colony Capital” defeats service | Colony Capital shared office and performed management functions for MLP; serving its employee at MLP’s address reasonably notified MDLP | Serving Colony Capital is not serving MLP/MDLP and thus was improper | Serving Colony Capital at MLP’s address was sufficient because Colony Capital managed MLP’s affairs and shared the address; not a deficient service |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due-process notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Gold Kist, Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co., Inc., 756 F.2d 14 (3d Cir. 1985) (default judgment entered without proper service is void)
- Grand Entm’t Grp., Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1993) (personal jurisdiction requires service in accordance with the rules)
- Echevarria-Gonzalez v. Gonzalez-Chapel, 849 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1988) (service must comply with federal rules to confer jurisdiction)
- Constitutional Guided Walking Tours, LLC v. Independence Visitor Ctr. Corp., 804 F. Supp. 2d 320 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (Rule 4 is flexible; technical defects should not defeat valid service)
- Crispin-Taveras v. Municipality of Carolina, 647 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (district court need not dismiss where defendant admits service and plaintiff later cures affidavit)
- Porter v. Hardin, 164 F.2d 401 (5th Cir. 1947) (service on a general partner is proper method to serve a partnership)