Opinion
Case No. 2:00CV640 DAK
May 13, 2003
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Prospective State Defendants' Motion to Quash Service of Process. The court has carefully considered the materials submitted by the parties and has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the court in deciding this motion.
Defendants Robert Flowers, Craig Dearden, Ronald Miller. Jan Graham, Reed Richards, Joe Zdunich, the Office of the Utah Attorney General and Peace Officer Standards and Training (the "Prospective State Defendants") have moved this court to quash the attempted service of process by mail addressed to Peter L. Rognlie. Assistant Utah Attorney General, on or about January 10, 2003.
The Prospective State Defendants admit that the Office of the Attorney General was properly served on January 14, 2003, and thus, whether the January to, 2003 service was proper is a moot issue.
Plaintiff's counsel mailed a copy of the Amended Complaint to Mr. Rognlie on or about January 10, 2003. This mailing, however, does not amount to proper service on any of the Proposed State Defendants, most of whom are state actors who have been named as defendants in their individual capacities. Plaintiff has also not properly served POST. Further, Mr. Rognlie is not counsel of record for the Prospective State Defendants because neither he nor any other attorney has made an appearance in this matter. In addition, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Mr. Rognlie or the Utah State Attorney General is authorized to accept service of process for any of the Prospective State Defendants.
Plaintiff appears to acknowledge in his opposition memorandum that he has not served any of the Prospective State Defendants, except for Robert Flowers and Ronald E. Miller (which service apparently occurred after the January to, 2003 mailing that is the subject of this motion). However, Plaintiff purports to give notice, through his opposition memorandum, to the Prospective State Defendants and their counsel that they have a duty to avoid costs for service of process under FRCP 4 and that he is requesting that they accept service of process via the court's forms that he claims to have attached to his opposition memorandum No such forms were attached to the memorandum submitted to the court. Nevertheless, even if the forms had been attached, Plaintiff has not complied with the procedure set forth in FRCP 4(d) for obtaining a waiver of service, and thus, Plaintiff's request for a waiver or service, contained in his opposition memorandum, is void.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Prospective State Defendants' Motion to Quash Service of Process [docket entry #101] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's attempted service by mail to Mr. Rognlie on January 10, 2003 is QUASHED.