Supreme Court of Maryland
Allan M. Pickett v. Sears, Roebuck & Company
July 13, 2001365 Md. 67
Summary
The court upheld substituted service consisting of posting the summons and complaint at Pickett's residence and mailing them by first-class mail, concluding that the method was authorized by Rule 3-121(c) and reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. The court also held that the District Court lacked authority to strike the jury demand based on the amount in controversy, but affirmed because Pickett's demand was untimely. No separate opinions were filed.
Holding
- Validity of substituted service and personal jurisdiction. The substituted service ordered and effectuated under Rule 3-121(c) was constitutionally sufficient and conferred personal jurisdiction because Sears made good-faith efforts to accomplish ordinary service, service under the alternative provision was impracticable, and posting plus mailing was reasonably calculated to give Pickett actual notice. The rule also permitted Sears to use a private process server.
- Jury-demand timing and the District Court's authority to evaluate the demand. The District Court did not have authority to strike Pickett's jury demand because the amount in controversy was below the statutory threshold, but the demand was properly denied because it was untimely. A timely jury demand transfers jurisdiction to the circuit court, while the District Court may determine timeliness before transmitting the record.
Docket 104, September Term, 2000
Cited authorities
- Rule 107(a)(3)
- 48 Md. L. Rev. 669
- N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 308
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1)