Vazquez-Robles v. Commoloco, Inc.
932 F. Supp. 2d 259
D.P.R.2013Background
- Vazquez filed an ADA/Title VII discrimination and retaliation complaint on July 26, 2012.
- Clerk issued a summons on July 27, 2012; executed summons filed September 4, 2012 showing service on Prentice-Hall Corp System Puerto Rico, Inc. as resident agent via Kenneth C. Bury.
- Defendant defaulted on September 5, 2012; jury verdict for Vazquez on January 28, 2013 and judgment entered the same day.
- A writ of execution was issued March 5, 2013; marshal returned the writ as executed against CommoLoCo assets.
- CommoLoCo moved March 13, 2013 to set aside judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction and to stay execution; argued that CT Corporation System, not Prentice-Hall/Bury, was resident agent.
- Gonzalez provided an unsworn statement detailing service through Bury, asserting Prentice-Hall remained CommoLoCo’s resident agent and was properly served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was service of process sufficient to confer jurisdiction? | Vazquez asserts service on Prentice-Hall via Bury complied with Rule 4(h)(1) and Puerto Rico rules. | CommoLoCo contends service was invalid because Prentice-Hall/Bury were not proper agents; CT Corporation is the resident agent. | Service sufficient; court denies voiding judgment for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Which entity was CommoLoCo’s proper resident agent at service time? | Gonzalez’s testimony shows Prentice-Hall as resident agent and proper to receive process. | Chapman asserts CT Corporation System was the resident agent since 2011. | Proof supports Prentice-Hall as resident agent at service time; service valid. |
| Should the judgment be set aside under Rule 60(b)(4) for void judgment? | Plaintiff maintains service was valid and judgment should stand. | Defendant seeks relief as the judgment is void due to improper service. | Judgment is not void; Rule 60(b)(4) relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2008) (return of service is prima facie evidence; burden shifts when challenged)
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1999) (service of summons required before court may exercise jurisdiction)
- Rivera-Lopez v. Municipality of Dorado, 979 F.2d 885 (1st Cir. 1992) (once challenged, plaintiffs must prove proper service)