UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

PETER GOGGIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-566-SPC-KCD

LVNV FUNDING, LLC,

Defendant. / ORDER Before the Court is Defendant LVNV Funding LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Process. (Doc. 11).1 The Court finds good cause to rule on this motion without awaiting a response from Plaintiff Peter Goggin. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED. I. Background LVNV is a debt collector. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7, 8.) It bought a debt purportedly owed by Goggin. (Id. ¶¶ 10-16.) To recover the outstanding balance, LVNV garnished his wages. (Id. ¶ 10.) Goggin then filed this case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. He alleges LVNV has not shown it legally owns the debt. (Id. ¶ 18.)

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. After filing suit, Goggin sent copies of the summons and complaint by certified mail to LVNV’s principal place of business in South Carolina.2 (Doc.

5, Doc. 6.) LVNV received the documents but claims service by certified mail was improper under Rule 4. (Doc. 11.) It now moves to quash the service of process. (Id.) II. Legal Standard

“Constitutional due process requires that litigants have notice of an action brought against them and an opportunity to be heard.” Baxter v. Miscavige, No. 8:22-CV-986-TPB-JSS,

, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2023). “Thus, after a complaint is filed, a plaintiff is responsible for having

the summons and complaint served on a defendant.”

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) governs service on domestic corporations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). “With respect to a limited liability company such as [LVNV], Rule 4 requires service of process to be accomplished

in one of the following three ways: (1) by requesting that the company waive service, (2) by following the service rules of the state in which the lawsuit is filed or in which service is to be made, or (3) by delivering a summons and the Complaint to an officer, managing agent, general agent, or any other agent

2 See https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype= EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=LVNVFUNDING%20M110000014 880&aggregateId=forl-m11000001488-1619162c-ca36-4236-9fa0-08821a4aa937&searchTer m=LVNV%20Funding%2C%20LLC&listNameOrder=LVNVFUNDING%20M110000014880 (last visited Aug. 30, 2024). authorized by law to accept service on the company’s behalf.” Pierre v. Little New Orleans 1 Kitchen & Oyster Bar, L.L.C., No. 6:15-CV-709-ORL-40DAB,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2016). III. Discussion Focusing on Florida law, LVNV claims that it was not correctly served. (Doc. 11 at 2-3.) “The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service by

certified mail, but only if the defendant agrees to waive personal service.” (Id. at 3.) Since there was no waiver here, LVNV concludes that “Plaintiff’s attempts at service via certified mail are insufficient.” (Id. at 4.) But this argument starts from a flawed premise—that Goggin was

required to serve process under Florida law. Rule 4 instead offered Goggin a choice. He could serve LVNV under Florida law (because the lawsuit was filed here) or South Carolina law (since service was made in that state). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), (h)(1)(A); Pierre,

, at *2.

Important for our purposes, Florida and South Carolina law diverge concerning when a plaintiff can use certified mail. In Florida, a plaintiff may only serve a corporate defendant by certified mail “if [it] agrees to waive personal service.” Bufkin v. Scottrade, Inc., 812 F. App’x. 838, 844 (11th Cir.

2020). South Carolina does not have an analogous restriction. See Rule 4(d)(8), SCRCP. Instead, a plaintiff may serve a corporation by certified mail in that state if they request a return receipt and restrict delivery to the addressee. See, e.g., Sams v. Heritage Transp., Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00462-DCN,

, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2018). LVNV’s motion does not discuss whether Goggin’s attempt to serve

process by certified mail was proper under South Carolina law. (See generally Doc. 11.) As a result, LVNV has not met its burden to show “how the service of

process failed to meet the procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Laltitude, LLC v. Freshetech, LLC, No. 6:21-CV-1879-PGB-LHP,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2022). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: LVNV Funding LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Process (Doc. 11) is DENIED. By September 13, 2024, LVNV must either file a renewed motion explaining how service remains improper under South Carolina law or respond to the complaint. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 5, 2024.

I | : i i Co bet ila Keele C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

3 A magistrate judge must issue a report and recommendation, subject to de novo review, for certain case-dispositive motions.

(b)(1)(B). In contrast, a magistrate judge may issue an order, subject to clear error review, for non-dispositive matters.

(b)(1)(A). LVNV’s motion falls into the latter category because it only seeks to quash service and does not dispose of any claim or defense. See, e.g., United States v. Faro, No. 2:20- CV-769-JLB-NPM,

, at *1 n.2 (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2022).