Grimes v. Carpenter Management Co.
8:24-cv-00552
| D. Maryland | Jun 20, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Chanea Grimes attempted to serve the defendant, Carpenter Management Co., but was unsuccessful because the company’s registered trade name status is "forfeited" in Maryland records.
- The registered address for service was undeliverable as the business premises were closed.
- The defendant, "Carpenter Management Co.," is only a trade name owned by Sharon Carpenter, Inc., a Maryland corporation that forfeited its charter in 2022 after not filing required documents for over 20 years.
- Plaintiff sought to serve process via attorney Francis Granados, who represented the defendant in a prior, related matter, but Granados declined to accept service or provide further contact information.
- The court considered whether alternative service (on the attorney) was appropriate, and whether the complaint must be amended to name the correct party.
- The matter is at an early stage, involving service of process and the proper party defendant, with dismissal possible if the rules are not followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Plaintiff serve a forfeited entity | Grimes asserts service should proceed on the entity Carpenter Mgmt. Co. | Not stated; implied forfeiture defense | Must amend to proper parties |
| Is serving company's attorney allowed | Grimes requests authorization for alternative service on defense attorney | Attorney refused service | Not authorized; denied |
| Does Maryland law permit suit against a forfeited corporation | Grimes argues forfeiture shouldn’t extinguish suit | N/A (no appearance) | Permitted if for winding up |
| Has Plaintiff shown grounds for alternative service | Grimes claims usual methods failed | N/A (no appearance) | Inadequate; mere inability is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2002) (a trade name is not a separate legal entity and cannot be sued)
- Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Bldg. Sys. Inc., 733 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1984) (liberal construction of service rules when defendant receives actual notice)
- Thomas v. Rowhouses, Inc., 206 Md. App. 72 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012) (a forfeited corporation can be sued for purposes of winding up and satisfying debts)
- Dual Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 383 Md. 151 (Md. 2004) (forfeited corporations are legal non-entities, but plaintiffs can sue directors-trustees for winding up)