Norvor v. National Apartment Association et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
JANE DOE
:
v. 	: 	Civil Action No. DKC 25-3436
:
NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION,
et al. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed a motion for alternative service on Defendant
Ayiesha S. Beverly (“Ms. Beverly”) on December 5, 2025.1 	(ECF No.
21). 	For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff commenced this action on October 17, 2025, and paid
the filing fee. 	(ECF No. 1). 	She is responsible for service and
under no circumstances will the court undertake service. 	Nor has
Plaintiff provided sufficient support for alternative service.
Plaintiff 	provided 	handwritten 	proposed 	summonses 	with 	her
Complaint, 	typewritten 	proposed 	summonses 	on 	October 	20, 	2025,
(ECF No. 5), and additional proposed summonses on October 28, 2025.
(ECF 	No. 	8). 	The 	court 	issued 	an 	Order 	on 	November 	6, 	2025,
directing the Clerk to issue summonses to Defendants Anne Tomkinson
and 	Ms. 	Beverly 	and 	to 	provide 	said 	summonses 	to 	Plaintiff 	for
service. 	(ECF No. 11). 	Within that Order, Plaintiff was directed
1 	The Clerk docketed the motion on December 8, 2025.
Case 8:25-cv-03436-DKC Document 28 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 5

2
to 	submit 	a 	revised 	proposed 	summons 	for 	the 	National 	Apartment
Association 	(“NAA”) 	addressed 	to 	the 	resident 	agent, 	president,
secretary, 	or 	treasurer. 	Plaintiff 	did 	so 	on 	November 	6, 	2025,
(ECF 	No. 	14), 	and 	the 	court 	issued 	an 	Order 	on 	November 	7, 	2025,
directing the Clerk to issue the summons to the NAA and provide it
to Plaintiff for service. 	(ECF No. 15).
On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Declaration of Service
claiming 	that 	service 	was 	effected 	upon 	Defendant 	Anne 	Tomkinson
on 	November 	19, 	2025, 	on 	behalf 	of 	herself 	and 	on 	behalf 	of 	the
NAA. 	(ECF No. 17).
Plaintiff 	filed 	the 	instant 	motion 	on 	December 	5, 	2025,
seeking 	an 	Order 	directing 	the 	Clerk 	to 	serve 	Ms. 	Beverly 	by
certified mail at both her home address and address of employment,
by 	first-class 	mail 	at 	both 	her 	home 	address 	and 	address 	of
employment, by email, and by posting at her residence.2 	(ECF No.
21). 	The same date, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Due Diligence
in 	which 	private 	process 	server, 	Abel 	Emiru, 	relates 	efforts 	to
serve 	Ms. 	Beverly 	at 	the 	NAA, 	her 	place 	of 	employment. 	(ECF 	No.
20). 	Plaintiff 	states 	that 	personal 	service 	on 	Ms. 	Beverly 	was
attempted 	on 	three 	occasions 	at 	the 	headquarters 	of 	the 	NAA, 	but
2 	Within 	the 	motion, 	Plaintiff 	provides 	Ms. 	Beverly’s 	home
address and email address.
Case 8:25-cv-03436-DKC Document 28 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 5

3
that Ms. Beverly was not present during any of the attempts. 	(ECF
No. 	21, 	at 	1-3). 	Based 	on 	the 	attempts 	made 	thus 	far, 	Plaintiff
alleges that Ms. Beverly is evading service.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(2) permits service on an individual by
(A) 	delivering 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	summons 	and 	of
the 	complaint 	to 	the 	individual 	personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s
dwelling or usual place of abode with someone
of 	suitable 	age 	and 	discretion 	who 	resides
there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an
agent 	authorized 	by 	appointment 	or 	by 	law 	to
receive service of process.
Alternatively, an individual may be served by any means allowed by
the 	state 	where 	the 	district 	court 	is 	located 	or 	the 	state 	where
service is to be effected. 	Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1). 	Under Maryland
law, service can be effected
(1) 	by 	delivering 	to 	the 	person 	to 	be 	served
a 	copy 	of 	the 	summons, 	complaint, 	and 	all
other papers filed with it; (2) if the person
to 	be 	served 	is 	an 	individual, 	by 	leaving 	a
copy of the summons, complaint, and all other
papers 	filed 	with 	it 	at 	the 	individual’s
dwelling house or usual place of abode with a
resident 	of 	suitable 	age 	and 	discretion; 	or
(3) 	by 	mailing 	to 	the 	person 	to 	be 	served 	a
copy of the summons, complaint, and all other
papers 	filed 	with 	it 	by 	certified 	mail
requesting: 	‘Restricted 	Delivery--show 	to
whom, date, address of delivery.’
Md. 	Rule 	2-121(a). 	However, 	if 	the 	party 	intending 	to 	effect
service 	presents 	the 	court 	with 	an 	affidavit 	stating 	that 	good
Case 8:25-cv-03436-DKC Document 28 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 5

4
faith efforts to serve an individual defendant in accordance with
Maryland Rule 2-121(a) have failed and service under Maryland Rule
2-121(b)3 	is 	impracticable, 	the 	court 	is 	permitted 	to 	“order 	any
other 	means 	of 	service 	that 	it 	deems 	appropriate 	in 	the
circumstances 	and 	reasonably 	calculated 	to 	give 	actual 	notice.”
Md. 	Rule 	2-121(c). 	In 	order 	to 	pass 	constitutional 	muster, 	such
notice 	“is 	that 	which 	is 	‘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.’” 	Elmco Props., Inc. v. Second Nat’l Fed. Sav. Ass’n,
94 	F.3d 	914, 	920–21 	(4 th 	Cir. 	1996) 	(quoting 	Mullane 	v. 	Cent.
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).
Additionally, service outside of Maryland can be made in the
manner prescribed by the rules of the state where service is to be
effected if it is reasonably calculated to provide actual notice.
Md. 	2-121(a); 	see 	also 	Fed.R.Civ.P. 	4(e)(1) 	(authorizing 	service
3 Md. Rule 2-121(b) states “[w]hen 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. Rule 2-121(b).
Case 8:25-cv-03436-DKC Document 28 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 5

5
of 	individuals 	in 	accordance 	with 	the 	rules 	of 	the 	state 	where
service is to be effected).
The Affidavit of Due Diligence details attempts to serve Ms.
Beverly 	at 	her 	place 	of 	employment. 	However, 	Plaintiff 	has 	not
offered 	any 	affidavits 	detailing 	that 	other 	methods 	of 	service
provided for in Md. Rule 2-121(a) have failed.
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	this 	10 th 	day 	of 	December, 	2025, 	by 	the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED
that:
1. 	The motion for alternative service (ECF No. 21) BE, and
the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2. 	The 	Clerk 	is 	DIRECTED 	to 	transmit 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Order
to Plaintiff.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
Case 8:25-cv-03436-DKC Document 28 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 5