Summary
finding that defendant company was properly served because process was mailed to defendant's principal place of business and no defendant asserted that the signatory to return receipt was not an authorized agent for purposes of Rule 403
Summary of this case from Hutton v. KDM Transp., Inc.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4499.
November 30, 2010
ORDER
AND NOW this 30th day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Docket No. 4), the defendants' responses, the plaintiffs' replies, and Dakota Bodies' sur-reply thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set out in a Memorandum of today's date, that the Motion is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County.