Moran v. Ana G. Mendez University

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MARIA TERESA MORAN, 	*
Plaintiff, 	*
Civil Action No. 8:23-cv-01751-PX
v. 	*
ANA G. MENDEZ UNIVERSITY, 	*
Defendant.
*
***
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending in this breach of contract case is Defendant Ana G. Mendez University’s
(“AGMU”) Motion to Quash Service of Process. 	ECF No. 26. 	The motion has been briefed;
Plaintiff Maria Teresa Moran (“Moran”) has responded (ECF No. 28), and no hearing is necessary.
See D. Md. Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
Moran filed her Complaint on June 28, 2023, alleging breach of contract arising from
AGMU’s failure to provide certain accommodations to Moran in connection with its nursing
program. ECF No. 1 at 4. The Court granted Moran’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on
August 10, 2023, and ordered the United States Marshals Service (U.S.M.S.) to effectuate service
of process on AGMU. ECF No. 4. The Court supplied to Moran instructions for how to effectuate
service on a corporation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). Id.
Thereafter, AGMU appeared to have been served, as the summons was returned executed
on September 20, 2023. ECF No. 7. AGMU however failed to timely answer or respond to the
Complaint, so Moran moved for default judgment on October 26, 2023. ECF No. 8. The Court
denied the motion because AGMU, in fact, had not been properly served. 	ECF No. 12. 	Once
again, the Court reminded Moran about her service obligations under Rule 4(h). 	Id. 	Further,
Case 8:23-cv-01751-PX Document 30 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 5

2
because Moran had sued AGMU, a corporate entity located in Florida, the Court included a link
to the Florida Division of Corporations so that Moran could identify the resident agent on whom
service was to be effectuated. Id.
On February 21, 2024, the Clerk reissued the summons, ECF No. 13, which the U.S.M.S.
returned as executed on March 11, 2024. ECF No. 15. This time, Moran listed on the service of
process form the Defendant as “Ana G. Mendez University President: Jose F. Mendez or his
secretary/representative” and included an address located in Puerto Rico. ECF No. 15. The return-
receipt reflected that the summons and Complaint had been mailed via certified mail restricted
delivery, and an individual named “Pablo” signed for it. Id. at 2.
AGMU again failed to respond to the Complaint, so the Clerk entered default under Rule
55(a) on September 20, 2024. ECF No. 17 & 18. On October 21, 2024, AGMU next moved to
vacate the order of default, ECF No. 20, which this Court granted, in part because of Moran’s
defective service of process. ECF No. 25 at 3. AGMU now moves to quash service of process
altogether. ECF Nos. 26 & 27. 	Because the service was again defective, the motion is granted.
As Moran well knows, Rule 4(h) governs service on a corporation. See, e.g. ECF Nos. 4
& 12. Pursuant to the rule, service must be effectuated either “in the manner prescribed by Rule
4(e)(1) for serving an individual” or “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint
to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law
to receive service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). 	Moran has done neither.
First, Moran did not deliver the summons and Complaint on an authorized agent for the
Florida corporation that is the real party in suit.1 	Moran, instead served what appears to be a
1 The Florida Division of Corporations identifies AGMU as active domestic corporation with a resident agent. See
https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=I
nitial&searchNameOrder=ANAGMENDEZUNIVERSITY%20N210000096340&aggregateId=domnp-
n21000009634-0a4e0669-466d-4bbc-9361-d0705d8e7445&searchTerm=Ana%20G%20Mendez%20University
Case 8:23-cv-01751-PX Document 30 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 5

3
separate, parent entity located in Puerto Rico. ECF No. 27-1. A contractor for AGMU’s parent
company, Pablo Aldea Velazquez, accepted service. ECF No. 27-2 at 1. But because Velazquez
is not an authorized agent to accept service for the AGMU corporate entity in Florida, service is
plainly insufficient under Rule 4(h). See also ECF No. 27-2 at 2 (stating Mr. Velasquez “has not
been granted authority and does not have authority to accept services of process on behalf
AGMU.”).
Nor did Moran comply with Rule 4(e)(1) which allows service on a corporation to be
effectuated by “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.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(e)(1). The entity that must be served is the one Moran has sued—AGMU located in Florida.
See ECF No. 1 at 2. Whether looking to the Maryland or Florida service rules, both permit service
on the resident agent. See Md. Rule Civ P. 3-124(d) (stating that service on a corporation may be
effectuated by serving the “resident agent, president, secretary, or treasurer,” and if none exists or
good faith efforts failed, then “service may be made by serving the manager, any director, vice
president, assistant secretary, assistant treasurer, or other person expressly or impliedly authorized
to receive service of process.”) 	See also Fla. Stat. Ann. § 48.081(2) (2023) (“A domestic
corporation or a registered foreign corporation may be served with process required or authorized
by law by service on its registered agent designated by the corporation.”). Both rules also provide
for clear alternatives in lieu of service on the resident agent. 	See Md. Rule Civ P. 3-124(d) & Fl.
St. § 48.081(3) (2023). Moran, however, did not serve the resident agent, nor did she attempt to
comply with the applicable state service requirements. Because service is insufficient, the motion
to quash is GRANTED.
&listNameOrder=ANAGMENDEZUNIVERSITY%20F180000019331.
Case 8:23-cv-01751-PX Document 30 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Again, the Court recognizes that Moran proceeds pro se, and she has most recently
expressed being “confused” at the service requirements. ECF No. 28 at 1. Accordingly, the Court
will grant Moran one final opportunity to perfect service. 	Moran, however, is reminded that
effectuating proper service is not a mere technicality. Id. at 2. It cuts to the heart of due process
and must be carried out with requisite care. 	See, e.g., Brown v. Am. Inst. for Research, 487 F.
Supp. 2d 613, 614 (“[V]alid service of process is essential to the concept of due process, and when
it has not been effected, the due processes of the law cannot even begin.”).
To that end, the Court has included the direct link to the Florida Division of Corporations
page for AGMU, see infra n.1, which identifies the resident agent presently listed for the
corporation. This Order also, once again, identifies the relevant service rules with which Moran
must comply. Moran must do the rest. Future failure to effectuate proper service will result in
dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is this 2nd day of February 2026, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant Ana G. Mendez University’s Motion to Quash at ECF No. 26 is
GRANTED;
2. 	The Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Order, together with one copy of the U.S.M.S
service of process and summons forms to Plaintiff Maria Teresa Moran;
3. 	Plaintiff IS GRANTED TWENTY-ONE (21) days from the date of this Order in
which to complete the U.S.M.S and summons forms and return them to the Clerk.
Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to return the completed U.S.M.S. and summons
forms in a timely and complete manner may result in the dismissal of this case without
prejudice and without further notice from the Court;
Case 8:23-cv-01751-PX Document 30 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 5

5
4. 	Upon receipt of the U.S.M.S. form, the Clerk SHALL ISSUE summons and
forward same together with the Complaint, the U.S.M.S. forms, and a COPY
OF THIS ORDER to the U.S.M.S.; and
5. 	The U.S.M.S IS DIRECTED to effectuate service of process on Defendant at
the address provided by Plaintiff. The Court expressly AUTHORIZES the U.S. M.S.
to use the U.S. Postal Service delivery to effectuate service, but must do so by
RESTRICTED DELIVERY, CERTIFIED MAIL.
February 2, 2026 	/s/
Date 	Paula Xinis
United States District Judge
Case 8:23-cv-01751-PX Document 30 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 5