UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDACASE NO. l6-6l5ll-CIV-ZLOCHCAROL WILDING, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, d/b/a

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

and DEBORAH ''DEBBIE'' WASSERMAN

SCHULTZ,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court

ORDER

upon Defendants' Motion ToDismiss For Insufficient Service Of Process Or, In The Alternative,

Extend Time To Answer Or Respond To Complaint (DE 9), Which the

Court, by prior Order (DE 25), has construed as a Motion To Quash

Service Of Process. The Court has carefully reviewed said Motion,

the entire court file and is otherwise fully advised in the

premises.

1. Backqround

By the instant Motion (DE 9) and Memorandum (DE 11),

Defendants contend that while the Affidavits Of Service Of Process

(DE Nos. 6

Defendant DNC Services Corporation, d/b/a Democratic National

Committee (hereinafter nDefendant DNC''), and Defendant DeborahWasserman Schultz (hereinafter uDefendant Wasserman Schultz'') was

effected by serving an individualnamed Rebecca Christopher, theseAffidavits are incorrect. Defendants provide the Declaration Of

.

'

t

purport to show that service of process for b0th

Case 0:16-cv-61511-WJZ Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2016 Page 1 of 10

 

Rebecca Herries In Support Of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss For

Insufficient Service Of Process Or, In The Alternative

,

Extend Time

To Answer Or Respond To Complaint (DE l0) to rebut Plaintiffs'

Affidavits (DE Nos. 6 In her Declaration (DE 10)

,

Rebecca

Herries states that she is employed at Defendant DNC as a specialassistant to the CEO, Who, at that time Was Amy Dacey

,

and that Ms.Herries was the individual Plaintiffs attempted to serve on July 1

,

2016. Defendants argue that Rebecca Herries is not a properrecipient of service of process pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 4(e) and 4(h). Defendants argue that under no applicable

rule permitting service of process, as set forth below

,

was Rebecca

Herries authorized to accept service of process on behalf of either

Defendant. The Court reviewed Rebecca Herries's Declaration (DElO) and by separate Order (DE 25) set an evidentiary hearing for

the purpose of permitting Plaintiffs an opportunity to meet theirburden of demonstrating that service of process was proper

.

The Court held the evidentiary Hearing on the instant Motion

To Quash Service Of Process (DE 9) on August 23, 2016. At said

Hearing, the Court heard testimony from one witness on behalf of

.

'

)

.

)k . . r

Plaintiffs, Mr. Ricardo Villalba-cabral, the videographer of

Plaintiffs' process server, Shawn Lucasds

,

efforts to serveDefendants on July 1, 2016. Both Plaintiffs and Defendantsintroduced evidence at the Hearing

.

Plaintiffs introduced a videorecording of the alleged service of process

,

a police report

2

Case 0:16-cv-61511-WJZ Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2016 Page 2 of 10

 

documenting the death of Plaintiffs' process

pertaining to the police repot.6, and a corrected Affidavit of

Service. Defendants introduced the original Affidavits Of Service

Of Process (DE Nos. & 7). Additionally, Plaintiffs sought to

introiuce into evidence a document purportedly obtained through

WikiLeaks. The Court finds that regardless of whether this

proposed exhibit was made a part of the record, its ruling hereinwould not be affected. Thus, the Court need not reach the issue ofthe admissibility of this document at this time.server, an email

Plaintiffs argued that the Court

should exercise its discretion and find that while Rebecca Herries

is not an individual listedthat by receiving service

in any of the rules concerning service,

.

' l

, .

'

1.- .'

'

# ?

on behalf of both Defendants, she

exercised apparent authority sufficient to receive service and thus

give this Court personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs have not complied with any

applicable rule forservice of process and that Rebecca Herries had

no authority to accept service on behalf of either Defendant.The Court notes for the record that, at the Hearing, the Courtasked Plaintiffs to clarify whether Defendant Wasserman Schultz isbeing sued in her corporate or her individual capacity. Plaintiffsconfirmed that she is being sued in her individual capacity.

. . .

?

.

.

.

'

î'. .

At the evidentiary Hearing,

3

Case 0:16-cv-61511-WJZ Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2016 Page 3 of 10