UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

ZACHARY D. LUDENS, 5:20-CV-05027-KES

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR vs. SERVICE BY MAIL

CHIEF JUSTICE DAVID E. GILBERTSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT; JUSTICE JANINE M. KERN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT; JUSTICE PATRICIA J. DEVANEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT; JUDGE SUSAN M. SABERS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHAIR OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS; LARRY M. VON WALD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS; JACK H. HIEB, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS; JUDGE JANE WIPF PFEIFLE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS; REED RASMUSSEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS; STEVEN R. BLAIR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COUNSEL TO THE SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS; SHERIDAN CASH ANDERSON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS; SHIRLEY JAMESON- FERGEL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CLERK OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT; AND LAURA J. GRAVES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT;

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Zachary D. Ludens, moves the court for an order allowing service by mail under SDCL 15-6-4(i). Docket 5. Under South Dakota law, “[a] defendant may admit service of the summons and complaint rather than requiring the plaintiff to effectuate personal service.” Larson Mfg. Co. of S.D., Inc. v. Western Shocase Homes, Inc.,

, at *3 (D.S.D. Apr. 25, 2019) (citing SDCL § 15-6-4(i)). Thus, “a summons may be served upon a defendant in any action by mailing a copy of the summons, two copies of the notice and admission of service, conforming substantially to the form provided for in [SDCL] § 15-6-4(j), and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.” SDCL § 15-6-4(i). Because the defendants may admit service of the summons by mail, a court order is not required. Thus, it is ORDERED that Luden’s motion for service (Docket 5) is denied. Dated April 30, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE