SUMMERGATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
v.
SANDSTONE SITE SERVICES LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The plaintiff sought appointment of private citizens as court-appointed process servers to serve defendants. The court denied the motion for failure to demonstrate that special court authority was necessary to accomplish service of process.
The court denied the motion because the plaintiff failed to describe with particularity why special court appointment was necessary. Court-appointed process servers are appropriate only when the process server needs authority that ordinary private process servers lack, or when reasonable methods of private service have been exhausted.
[1] A court may order that service of process be made by a person specially appointed by the court at the plaintiff's request.
[2] A court-appointed process server is appropriate when the party needs to be given authority not available to an ordinary private process server.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“court appointment is appropriate when the party needs to be given authority that is not available to the ordinary private process server”
Establishes the standard for when special process server appointment is warranted under Rule 4(c)(3)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Summergate Development, LLC filed a motion requesting the court appoint C. Grady Legette and Amanda Legette as process servers. The motion o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a]t the plaintiff's request, the court may order that service be made by a person specially appointed by the court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(c)(3). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure normally make appointment of a special process server unnecessary because Rule 4(c)(2) provides that service may be made by "[a]ny person who is at least 18 years old and [is] not a party," court appointment is appropriate when the party needs to be given authority that is not available to the ordinary private process server. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Weir, 531 F. Supp. 2d 674, 679 (E.D. N.C. 2008). A court-appointed process server may also be appropriate where other reasonable
methods of effecting service privately have been exhausted. Gaskin v. Hammer Scotts, Inc., No. 8:9-CV-647-T-17JSS, 2019 WL 13262721, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2019). As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have expanded the persons who may serve process, “a court appointment will be necessary only when the process server needs to be invested with the authority that accompanies a court.” Id. (quoting 4A Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1091 (3d ed. 2002)). Thus, any motion for appointment of a special process server should describe the reasons why that authority is necessary to effect service of process. Id.
Here, other than noting that C. Grady Legette and Amanda Legette are persons who are over the age 18 and not parties to the action, Doc. 11, p. 1, Plaintiff failed to indicate why special appointment of designated process servers is necessary in this case. See, e.g., GMAC Real Estate, LLC v. Waterfront Realty Grp., Inc., No. 209CV546FTM36SPC, 2010 WL 2465170, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2010) (“Plaintiff has provided no factual basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service of process and does not include any legal authority in support of its Motion other than Rule 4(c)(3).”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Process Server is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff feels that special court authority is needed, it must describe with particularity the reasons supporting its motion.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on August 16, 2024.
PHILIP R. LAMMENS
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Summergate Dev., LLC v. Sandstone Site Servs. LLC, 2019 WL 13262721 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…also be appropriate where other reasonable ---PAGE 1--- Case 5:24-cv-00329-JSM-PRL Document 12 Filed 08/16/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 114 methods of effecting service privately have been exhausted. Gaskin v. Hammer Scotts, Inc., No. 8:9-CV-647-T-17JSS, 2019 WL 13262721, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2019). As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have expanded the persons who may serve process, “a court appointment will be necessary only when the process server needs to be invested with the authority that accompanies a…
-
Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Jager (M.D. Fla. 2025)…a party,” a court appointment may be appropriate where the plaintiff is "unable to resort to private service or other reasonable methods of effecting service privately have been exhausted.” See Gaskin v. Hammer Scotts, Inc., No. 8:19-CV-647-T-17JSS, 2019 WL 13262721, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2019) (citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have expanded the persons who may serve process, “a court appointment will be necessary only when the process server need…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 2023 WL 7182358 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
- Summergate Dev., LLC v. Sandstone Site Servs. LLC, 2019 WL 13262721 (M.D. Fla. 2024)