Shein v. Mealthy Inc

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA [10] NATASHA M. SHEIN, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05352-DGE [11] Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING SECOND 12 v. MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE (DKT. NO. 12) 13 MEALTHY INC., 14 Defendant. [15] 16 On October 2, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to effect service on Casey 17 Musick, CEO of Mealthy. (Dkt. No. 10.) 18 On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Suggestion of Death” stating, upon information 19 and belief, that Musick recently died. (Dkt. No. 11.) The same day, Plaintiff filed her second 20 motion for alternative service. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff seeks to effect alternative service upon 21 MVP Holdings, the parent company of Mealthy, in lieu of direct service upon Musick. (Id.) 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) authorizes a party to serve a domestic corporation 23 located in a judicial district of the United States “in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for [24] 1 serving an individual or ... by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an 2 officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to 3 receive service of process and . . . by also mailing a copy to each to the defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. 4 P. 4 (h). 5 Any alternative service must comport with due process such that it is “reasonably 6 calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action 7 and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & 8 Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). The party effecting service must submit proof of service to 9 the court by the server's affidavit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1) (“Unless service is waived, proof of 10 service must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy 11 marshal, proof must be by the server's affidavit.”). 12 The Court finds service upon Mealthy’s parent company will sufficiently apprise Mealthy 13 of the pendency of this action. Plaintiff’s second motion for alternative service (Dkt. No. 12) is 14 GRANTED. Plaintiff may effect service upon MVP Holdings, Inc. in a manner that complies 15 with the Federal Civil Rules. 16 Dated this 27th day of November, 2023. [17] A [18] David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge