United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH; DISMISS
O. RICE, Chief United States District Judge.
THE COURT is Defendant Remo Polselli's Motion to Quash
Service of Process and to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (ECF No. 7). The matter was submitted for
consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed
the record and files herein, and is fully informed. For the
reasons discussed below, the Motion (ECF No. 7) is
Remo Polselli moves the Court to “quash the service of
process purportedly served on Remo Polselli and to dismiss
the action” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c), the plaintiff is
responsible for serving a summons and complaint within the
time allowed by Rule 4(m). Service can be made by
“[a]ny person who is at least 18 years old and not a
party”. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c). Rule 4(e) provides that
service upon an individual may be completed by: (1)
“following state law for serving a summons in an action
brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where
the district court is located or where service is
made”; (2) “delivering a copy of the summons and
of the complaint to the individual personally”; (3)
“leaving a copy of each at the individual's
dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age
and discretion who resides there”; or (4)
“delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service of process.” A
person can have more than one dwelling house or usual place
of abode for purpose of Rule 4. Stars' Desert Inn
Hotel & Country Club, Inc. v. Hwang, 105 F.3d 521,
524 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing National Dev. Co. v. Triad
Holding Corp., 930 F.2d 253, 257 (2d Cir. 1991)).
Courts “decision regarding the sufficiency of service
of process” is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284
F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002).
entire argument is that service was not proper because
“Plaintiff attempted service at one [or] more locations
in the State of California, rather than Polselli's
‘dwelling house or usual abode' in the State of
Michigan ‘or with someone who resides
there.'” ECF No. 7 at 5. First, Defendant notes
that “Plaintiff issued a Summons to Romeo Polselli,
not Remo Polselli, at 384 Forest
Avenue, Suite 26, Laguna Beach, CA 92561 and 21 Shell Beach,
Newport Coast, CA 92657.” ECF No. 7 at 2 (emphasis in
original). According to Defendant, he “is without
knowledge whether  Plaintiff attempted service at either
location.” ECF No. 7 at 2. Second, Defendant asserts
that “service was attempted . . . at 5 Coral Ridge
Newport Coast, CA 92567, but was rejected by Hana Karcho,
Polselli's wife, who advised the process service that
Polselli was not present at the time.” ECF No. 7 at 2.
as Plaintiff points out in its Response, Defendant does not
include an affidavit supporting their claims. Further,
Defendant does not provide any further explanation as to why
the California locations were not proper, other than his
contention that his usual place of abode is in Michigan.
filed a Response (ECF No. 8) detailing its numerous attempts
to serve Defendant. Plaintiff explains that Polselli provided
the Shell Beach address to Red Lion and agreed that
‘[a]ny notices, requests and demands' made under
the Guarantee should be sent to the Shell Beach
address.” ECF No. 8 at 2. Plaintiff asserts that it
made “seven attempts to personally serve Mr.
Polselli at the Shell Beach address from April 8 through
April 27, 2019” but “[t]he Shell Beach address
was unoccupied each time.” ECF No. 8 at 3.
also represents that it “attempted to personally serve
Mr. Polselli at an address discovered for him in Michigan[,
]” but the process server was told by a security guard
at the address that Mr. Polselli “sold that home
several years prior.” ECF No. 8 at 3. The
“process server then contacted Hanna Polselli, Mr.
Polselli's wife, by telephone and left her a number of
voice messages.” ECF No. 8 at 3. “Mr. Polselli
then called the process server himself, inquired about the
case, and told the process server that he would contact his
attorneys to find out which attorney would be handling this
matter and where to serve the documents.” ECF No. 8 at
3. “The process server attempted to contact Mr.
Polselli again following that conversation, but Mr. Polselli
never responded with instructions for where to effectuate
service.” ECF No. 8 at 3.
to Plaintiff, it “discovered the address at . . . 5
Coral Ridge, Newport Coast, CA 92657”, which is owned
by Mr. Polselli's company (Antigua Investments, LLC). ECF
No. 8 at 3. Red Lion hired a process server to attempt
personal service at the Coral Ridge address on May 30, 2019.
ECF No. 8 at 4. “When he arrived, the process server
noticed two vehicles with Michigan license plates in the
driveway.” ECF No. 8 at 4. According to Plaintiff,
“[t]hese vehicles were being leased by Pacific Coast
Leasing, Inc.[, ]” which is “another company
owned by Mr. Polselli.” ECF No. 8 at 4. “The
process server personally spoke with Ms. Polselli, who
identified herself as Mr. Polselli's wife” and
“told the process server that her husband was not
home.” According to Plaintiff, “Ms. Polselli then
agreed to-and did-accept service on behalf of Mr.
Polselli.” According to Plaintiff, “Mr. Polselli
receives mail at the Coral Ridge address and his name is on
the utilities”. ECF No. 8 at 3-4. Plaintiff asserts Mr.
Polselli “was actually staying” at the Coral
Ridge dwelling “when Ms. Polselli accepted service on
his behalf . . . .” ECF No. 8 at 4. Later, “Ms.
Polselli mailed the summons and complaint to Summit Law
Group, writing on the summons that the documents were
‘served to [her] in error.'” ECF No. 8 at 4.
“The Coral Ridge address was listed as the return
address.” ECF No. 8 at 4.
has presented sufficient indicia that the Coral Ridge
residence is one of Defendants' “usual place of
abode.” As noted above, Mr. Polselli receives mail at
the house and owns the property though his business; there
were two cars leased to another one of Mr. Polselli's
company at the location; the return address for the letter to
Summit Law Group identified Coral Ridge; and Mr.
Polseli's wife was present at the dwelling who said Mr.
Polselli is not “home” at that time, but agreed
to-and did-accept service on behalf of Mr. Polselli.
Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented sufficient
evidence to rebut Defendant's unsupported claim that his
only usual place of abode is in the State of Michigan.
Service has been effectuated.