When the method of service is challenged, it is the plaintiff's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that jurisdiction was, in fact, obtained over the defendant by timely and proper service of the summons and complaint. Melchor-Garcia v. Dong Ying Corp., No. 12-22217-CIV, 2012 WL 6553986, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2012) (J. O'Sullivan) (citation omitted). Plaintiff filed its Complaint on October 11, 2022.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that Chief Bradley was served in accordance with Rule 4(e). See Martin v. Salvatierra, 233 F.R.D. 630, 631 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (“[T]the burden of proving the validity of service of process is on the plaintiff.”); Melchor-Garcia v. Dong Ying Corp., No. 12-22217-CIV, 2012 WL 6553986, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2012) (“When the method of service is challenged, it is the plaintiff's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that jurisdiction was, in fact, obtained over the defendant by timely and proper service . . . .”).