Ngabo v. Le Pain Quotidien, 8:11-cv-00096

Ngabo filed a Title VII discrimination/retaliation action in Maryland state court and defendant Le Pain Quotidien removed to federal court on January 12, 2011.
Ngabo has worked as a dishwasher at Le Pain Quotidien's Bethesda, Maryland location since 2008.
Ngabo purported to serve the summons and complaint by certified mail to the Bethesda restaurant on December 27, 2010, without restricted delivery and without a return receipt.
The affidavit of service did not include the original return receipt and did not show service on an authorized recipient.
Defendant moved to dismiss or quash service; the court analyzes service of process under Maryland and federal rules and grants the motion to quash, with an opportunity for proper service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was service of process properly effected?	Ngabo argues service complied with Maryland rules by sending via certified mail to the restaurant.	Le Pain argues service failed due to lack of restricted delivery and service to an authorized recipient.	Service defective; not properly effected.
Does defective service require dismissal?	Dismissal is premature; court should allow another opportunity to effect service.	Defective service warrants dismissal or quash-and-dismiss separate remedy.	Dismissal not required; may quash and allow re-service.
What remedy should the court provide to cure service deficiency?	Plaintiff should be allowed to re-serve through proper method under Rule 4 and state law.	Proper service must be achieved before proceeding.	Court will provide 60 days to effect proper service and file return of service.

Vorhees v. Fischer & Krecke, 697 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1983) (authority to quash defective service and retain action for re-service)
Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25 (3d Cir. 1992) (pro se plaintiff may be given opportunity to effect service if no prejudice)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (in forma pauperis or pro se status should not bar consideration of claims)
State Highway Admin. v. Kee, 309 Md. 523 (Md. 1987) (proof of service by certified mail requires original return receipt)