Ross v. Gillette Children Hospital
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Ross v. Gillette Children Hospital
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Albert Ross, Civ. No. 23-2488 (JWB/ECW)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
Gillette Children Hospital, and Ronald TO DISMISS
McDonald House,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
Albert Ross, pro se Plaintiff.
Jennifer R. Olson, Esq., and Steven J. Sheridan, Esq., Fisher Bren & Sheridan, LLP,
counsel for Defendant Gillette Children Hospital.
Elizabeth Fuller, Esq., and Jonathan P. Norrie, Esq., Bradford Andresen Norrie &
Camarotto, counsel for Defendant Ronald McDonald House.
Defendants Ronald McDonald House (“RMH”) and Gillette Children Hospital
(“GCH”) have each filed Motions to Dismiss for improper service. (Doc. Nos. 16, 22.)
RMH and GCH contend that Plaintiff Albert Ross’s lone service attempt did not include
the Complaint and was improper service on a corporation under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4. (See Doc. Nos. 18, 24.) Both motions are granted.
Proper service of process is required for personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; Printed Media Servs., Inc. v. Solna Web, Inc., 11 F.3d 838, 843(8th Cir. 1993); see also Adams v. Allied Signal Gen. Aviation Avionics,74 F.3d 882
, 885 (8th Cir. 1996) (actual notice does not cure lack of personal jurisdiction). Proper service in this instance required delivering a copy of the Summons and the Complaint to an officer, managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (h), (e)(1).1 If not properly served within 90 days, a defendant may move for dismissal without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), 12(b)(4–5). An extension of time to correct service will only be granted when a plaintiff demonstrates good cause or excusable neglect. Colasante v. Wells Fargo Corp.,81 F. App’x 611
, 612–13 (8th Cir. 2003).
Ross filed suit on August 11, 2023, more than 90 days ago. (Doc. No. 1.) He filed
Proof of Service forms for each Defendant on August 11 and August 14, 2023. (Doc.
Nos. 5, 6.) But the forms themselves are insufficient to prove service of process on a
corporation in Minnesota—they do not identify who was served, listing only a location
and date. (Id.) Furthermore, both RMH and GCH contend that Ross did not include the
Complaint in his attempt, and served individual employees not authorized to receive
service on behalf of either corporate entity. (Doc. Nos. 18 at 3–5, 24 at 7.) To date,
Ross—with ample time to address the deficiency—has not responded to either motion,
has not requested that service be waived, and has not attempted to correctly serve either
party. (See generally Docket.) Because Ross has not complied with Rule 4 and has not
given any reason for his failure to serve either party, RMH and GCH’s motions are
granted. This matter is dismissed without prejudice.
1 Rule 4(h)(1) permits a corporation to be served “in the manner prescribed by Rule
4(e)(1),” which in turn permits service to be made pursuant to state law in the state where
the district court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1), (e)(1). In this instance, the Federal
and Minnesota requirements function identically. Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(c).
ORDER
Based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Ronald McDonald House’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No 16) is
GRANTED;
2. Defendant Gillette Children Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 22) is
GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff Albert Ross’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
4. Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment (Doc. Nos. 8, 11) are DENIED
AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 27, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Court Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Albert Ross, Civ. No. 23-2488 (JWB/ECW)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
Gillette Children Hospital, and Ronald TO DISMISS
McDonald House,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
Albert Ross, pro se Plaintiff.
Jennifer R. Olson, Esq., and Steven J. Sheridan, Esq., Fisher Bren & Sheridan, LLP,
counsel for Defendant Gillette Children Hospital.
Elizabeth Fuller, Esq., and Jonathan P. Norrie, Esq., Bradford Andresen Norrie &
Camarotto, counsel for Defendant Ronald McDonald House.
Defendants Ronald McDonald House (“RMH”) and Gillette Children Hospital
(“GCH”) have each filed Motions to Dismiss for improper service. (Doc. Nos. 16, 22.)
RMH and GCH contend that Plaintiff Albert Ross’s lone service attempt did not include
the Complaint and was improper service on a corporation under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4. (See Doc. Nos. 18, 24.) Both motions are granted.
Proper service of process is required for personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; Printed Media Servs., Inc. v. Solna Web, Inc., 11 F.3d 838, 843(8th Cir. 1993); see also Adams v. Allied Signal Gen. Aviation Avionics,74 F.3d 882
, 885 (8th Cir. 1996) (actual notice does not cure lack of personal jurisdiction). Proper service in this instance required delivering a copy of the Summons and the Complaint to an officer, managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (h), (e)(1).1 If not properly served within 90 days, a defendant may move for dismissal without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), 12(b)(4–5). An extension of time to correct service will only be granted when a plaintiff demonstrates good cause or excusable neglect. Colasante v. Wells Fargo Corp.,81 F. App’x 611
, 612–13 (8th Cir. 2003).
Ross filed suit on August 11, 2023, more than 90 days ago. (Doc. No. 1.) He filed
Proof of Service forms for each Defendant on August 11 and August 14, 2023. (Doc.
Nos. 5, 6.) But the forms themselves are insufficient to prove service of process on a
corporation in Minnesota—they do not identify who was served, listing only a location
and date. (Id.) Furthermore, both RMH and GCH contend that Ross did not include the
Complaint in his attempt, and served individual employees not authorized to receive
service on behalf of either corporate entity. (Doc. Nos. 18 at 3–5, 24 at 7.) To date,
Ross—with ample time to address the deficiency—has not responded to either motion,
has not requested that service be waived, and has not attempted to correctly serve either
party. (See generally Docket.) Because Ross has not complied with Rule 4 and has not
given any reason for his failure to serve either party, RMH and GCH’s motions are
granted. This matter is dismissed without prejudice.
1 Rule 4(h)(1) permits a corporation to be served “in the manner prescribed by Rule
4(e)(1),” which in turn permits service to be made pursuant to state law in the state where
the district court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1), (e)(1). In this instance, the Federal
and Minnesota requirements function identically. Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(c).
ORDER
Based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Ronald McDonald House’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No 16) is
GRANTED;
2. Defendant Gillette Children Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 22) is
GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff Albert Ross’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
4. Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment (Doc. Nos. 8, 11) are DENIED
AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 27, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Court Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown