Vinny's Towing & Recovery v. KBI Solutions LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
VINNY'S TOWING & RECOVERY,
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
Civil No. 24-1044-BAH
KBI SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.,
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
* * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
* *
Plaintiff Vinny's Towing and Recovery brought suit against KBI Solutions, LLC ("KBI")
and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. ("J.B. Hunt" or, collectively, "Defendants") asserting contractual
and quasi-contractual claims arising out of Plaintiff's towing, recovery, and storage of a
commercial motor vehicle. ECF 1 (Notice of Removal), at 2.
1
After being served with Plaintiffs
complaint, J.B. Hunt filed a cross-claim against KBI on April 10, 2024, asserting causes of action
for breach of_ contract, negligence, and indemnification. • See ECF 5 (State Court Cross-Claim).
Pending before the Court is J.B. Hunt's Motion for Alternative Service on KBI (the "Motion").
See ECF 22. KBI has not responded as they have not yet been served. All filings include exhibits.
The Court has reviewed all relevant filings and finds that no hearing is necessary. See Loe. R.
105.6 (D. Md. 2023). Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, J.B. Hunt's Motion for
Alternative Service is DENIED.
1
The Court references all filings by their respective ECF numbers and page numbers by the ECF-
generated page numbers at the top of the page.
Case 1:24-cv-01044-BAH Document 25 Filed 11/18/24 Page 1 of 7

I. BACKGROUND
I
Plaintiff filed suit against KBI seeking damages arising out of Plaintiffs towing, recovery,
I .
and storage of a tractor allegedly owned and operated by KBI, and a trailer owned by J.B. Hunt.
I: .
ECF 22, at 1. 'Fhe tractor and trailer were involved in a motor vehicle accident on or about
. 1: '
1: .
December 21, 2022. ECF 22, at 1. On August 12, 2024, this Court issued an order to show cause,
. 11 . .
directing Plaintiffl1;111d J.B. Hunt to explain why the case should not be dismissed against KBI for
I . .
failure to effectuate service. See ECF 8. On August 26, 2024, the Court extended the service
r .
deadline for KBI to September 30, 2024. ECF 11, at 1.· However, the record reflects that despite
th.at extension, PlLntiff has still not served KBI. J.B •. Hunt "requested its own summons for •
purposes of servJ~ KBI with the Cross-Claim." ECF 22, at 2 n.2. After failing to effectuate
service of proceJ on KBI, J.B. Hunt·asks this Court to authorize service in the following ways:
. (a) email to KB I's point of contact as found on contracts between KBI and J.B._Hunt (Carlos Banks
at email address :Carlosbanks1997@gmail.com); (b) email to KBI's insurance adjuster at
Progressive Insurfp.ce (Pam Mausser at email address Pamela_Mausser@Progressive.com); (c)
via regular mail to: KBI' s registered office; and ( d) by posting the summons and cross-claim on the
door ofKBI's registered office. See ECF 22, at 4.
1:
II. LEGALSTANDARD
Rule 4(h) [l'fthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service on a corporation within
the United States. ~ee Fed~-Civ. P. 4(h). ~his rule allows for a corporation to receive service of
process by any ml :ans allowed by the state where the district court is located, or the state 'where
service is to be eff~cted. See Fed R. Civ. P. 4(h)(l)(A). Subsection (l)(B) authorizes service upon
a corporation "by ~elivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing
or general agent, lor any other agent authorized by appointment. or by law to _receive service of
2
Case 1:24-cv-01044-BAH Document 25 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 7

process ani:1-if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires-by also mailing
a copy of each to the defendant." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(l)(B).
In Maryland, service is made upon a limited liability company by serving its resident agent.
See Md. Rules 2-124(h). If the limited liability company has no resident agent or ifa good faith
'
attempt to serve the resident agent has failed, "service may be made upon any member or other
person expressly or impliedly authorized to receive service of process." Id. In Pennsylvania,
service on a corporation or similar entity shall be made by personally serving the summons and
complaint to: (I) an executive officer, partner or trustee of the corporation or similar entity, or (2)
the manager, clerk or other person for the time being in charge of any regular place of business or
activity of the corporation or similar entity, or (3) an agent authorized by the corporation or similar
entity in writing to receive service of process for it. Pa. R. Civ. P. 424.
Maryland Rule 2-121(b) applies when defendants are evading service, and provides that:
When proof is made by affidavit that a defendant has acted to evade service, the
court may order that service be made by mailing a copy of the summons, complaint,
and all .other papers filed with it to the defendant ·at the defendant's last known
residence and delivering a copy of each to a person of suitable age and discretion
at the place of business of the defendant.
Md .. Rules 2-121(b). Additionally, when "proof is made by affidavit that good faith efforts to serve
the defend~t pursuant to [Md. Rule 2-121(a)] have not succeeded and that service p~suant to
[Md. Rule 2-121 (b )] is inapplicable or impracticable, the court may order any other means of
service that it deems appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably calculated to give actual
notice." Md. Rules 2-121(c). To pass constitutional muster, "notice must be 'reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action
and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.>" Timilan Corp. v. Empowerment Just.
Ctr. Corp., Civ. No. DKC-23-1134, 2023 WL 5671616, at *3 (D. Md. _Sept. 1, 2023) (citing
3
Case 1:24-cv-01044-BAH Document 25 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 7

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) and Elmco Props., Inc. v.
Second Nat'/ Fed.1 :sav. Ass'n, 94 F.3d 914, 920-21 (4th"Cir. 1996)). This Court has recognized
• I:
that "[w]hile persoμal service is the preferred method, Maryland Rule 2-12l(c) allows the <;::ourts
· to customize a mlthod of service specifically for the situation before it." Fid Nat'/ Title Ins.
Co. v. M&R Title, Inc., Civ.No. PWG-12-148, 2013 WL 12423808, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 15, 2013).
III. ANALYSIS
J.B. Hunt Jequests the Court authorize service by emailing the relevant documents to 1) the
point of contact li~ted on the contracts between KBI and J.B. Hunt (Carlos Banks) and 2) KBI's
insmance adjuster (Pam Mausser), maili~g (~ia regular mail) the relevant documents to KB I's
registered office ld posting the relevant documents on the door of KBI' s registered office. See
ECF 22, at 4.
According ,to J.B. Hunt, KBI is a limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Pennsklvania. ECF 1, at I. A joint status report, filed by Plaintiff and J.B. Hunt on
August 23, 2024, li~dicated KBI allegedly "had a designated.BOC-3 agent for service of process
in all states in whil
1
h Defendant KBI operated." ECF 10, at 1 n.1. However, in the motion at issue,
. I'
J.B. Hunt represerits that it "attempted to locate KBI's resident agent," but that "[i]n Pennsylvania,
rather than namJg a registered agent, businesses enlist a registered office or a commercial
registered office plrovider ("CROP'}" ECF 22, at 3. J.B. Hunt ass~rts that the address where J.B.
Hunt attempted to serve KBI "is the registered office listed on KBI' s Articles of Organization, and
thereby serves as re equivalent to a registered agent for purposes of effectuating service" and that
the "Pennsylvania Department of State shows that KBI does not have a CROP." Id at 3-4.
2
2
The Court note : that J.B. Hunt does not provide citations or attach exhibits to support these
assertions., •
4
Case 1:24-cv-01044-BAH Document 25 Filed 11/18/24 Page 4 of 7

J.B. Hunt hired a private process server, Charleah Sandt at De Novo Attorney Services,
Inc., to effectuate service of process on KBI. ECF 22, at 2. Sandt attempted service on three
consecutive days, September 16, 17, and I 8, 2024. ECF 22-1, at 1. The address at which Sandt
attempted to serve KBI was 242 Snapdragon Way, Rear Lot, Allentown, PA, 18104. Id at 1-2.
Counsel for J.B. Hunt indicates that four actions were taken in an effort to locate KBI, namely J.B.
Hunt: (1) confirmed that KBI's business address is the address listed above according to the
Pennsylvania Department of State, (2) confirmed that the above-listed address is the address KBI
provided to J.B. Hunt on contracts between J.B. Hunt and KBI related to KBI's provision of certain
motor carrier services, (3) engaged a process server to hand deliver service documents to KBI, and
( 4) attempted to locate KBI's resident agent. ECF 22, at 2. Moreover, J.B. Hunt alleges that KBI
is insured by Progressive Insurance and an adjuster has been assigned to the insurance claim. Id.
Sandt attempted service three times. ECF 22-1, at 1. On the first service attempt, Sandt
observed a coupon in the door, then proceeded to ring the doorbell and knock on the door but
received no answer. Id. On the second attempt, Sandt did not observe any cars in the driveway.
Id. Sandt rang the doorbell, poten~ially heard a dog bark "for a second," but was "not sure." Id.
Then, Sandt knocked on the door and realized "there was a dog." Id. According to Sandt,
"someone [was] in the house and [made] the dog stop barking." Id. On the third attempt, Sandt
again did not observe any cars in the driveway. Id. Sandt rang the doorbell, knocked on the door,
heard a dog bark, but received no answer. Id. Sandt then "tagged [the] door." Id. Sandt indicated
in the affidavit that KBI is "avoiding service." Id. J.B. Hunt also attempted to serve KBI, by
certified mail, but service was unsuccessful. ECF 22, at 4.
Sandt' s affidavit does not demonstrate that KBI is evading service or that service is
impracticable. During two of the three service attempts, there were no cars in the driveway. ECF
5
Case 1:24-cv-01044-BAH Document 25 Filed 11/18/24 Page 5 of 7

22-1, at I. What /s more, Sandt' s contention that KBI is "avoiding service" appears to be based
soleiy on Sandt's ~peculative statement that "someone [was] in the house. and [made] the dog stop
barking." Id. Ahditionally, Sandt' s affidavit shows that Sandt received the service notice on
. I . . .
September 12, at r26 p.m., then attempted service on three consecutive days, September 16, 17,
and 18, and then signed the affidavit of non-service on September 18 after the third unsuccessful
1 •
service attempt Id.; cf Timilan Corp, 2023 WL 5671616, at *2 (granting motion for alternative
service after nine μnsuccessful service attempts). Without more, J.B. Hunt has not shown that
service according to the Federal, Maryland, or Pennsylvania Rules cannot be accomplished. See
Scott v. Lori, Civ. No. ELH-19-2014, 2020 WL 4547960, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 6, 2020) (denying
motion for alternJ~ive service where "[p]laintiffhas not established that [defendants] have taken
affirmative steps tb evade service.").
3
• .
Accordinglto J.B. Hunt, Pam Mausser, the assigned adjuster, has "been in touch with KBI
concerning J.B .. ~unt's claim and the subject lawsuit" ECF 22, at 2. However, the email
co=pnndcoce +,hed lo the p~d;ng motion re=ls , dfa,~s;on ,bonl <he nfohmt ;n,_ce
coverage and indemnification provisions; the lawsuit is not expressly mentioned in the
I. . . .
correspondence, ECF 22-2, at 1-2. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the correspondence with
• the claims adjustJ:provides support for J.B:Hunt's claim that KBI is avoiding service.
I •
Accordingly, J.B. Hunt's motion for alternative service is denied without prejudice, and
J.B. Hunt is direcLd to serve KBI with any method authorized by the federal or applicable state
rules. Should J.BJ Hunt remain unable to serve KBI through documented good faith efforts under
3
J.B. Hunt states ~pat it "attempted, unsuccessfully, to serve KBI by certified mail/; ECF 22, at
4. J.B. Hunt provides no additiona) details, leaving the Court to speculate as to where exactly (and
I' •
to whom) the doc11111ents were mailed, why service was "unsuccessful," and whether an agent of
KBI refused servibe by certified mail.
6
Case 1:24-cv-01044-BAH Document 25 Filed 11/18/24 Page 6 of 7

the statutorily prescribed means, J.B. Hunt is welcome to again seek an order permitting alternative
service. The Court will grant J.B. Hunt an additional 45 days to effectuate service of process on
KBI.
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant J.B. Hunt's Motion for
Alternative Service on Defendant KBI, ECF 22, is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that J.B Hunt shall serve KBI with any method authorized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or applicable state rules within forty-five (45) days of the date of
this opinion.
It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to the
last known address of Defendant KBI Solutions.
A separate implementing Order will issue.
Dated: November 18, 2024 Isl
Brendan A. Hurson
United States District Judge
7
Case 1:24-cv-01044-BAH Document 25 Filed 11/18/24 Page 7 of 7