Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Asaridis v. Weinstein

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

June 27, 2014

DESPINA ASARIDIS, IOANNIS ASARIDES, Plaintiffs,
v.
ERIC M. WEINSTEIN, TAILORED TAX CENTER, EFFICIENT EXCAVATING, INC., CHASE, BANK OF AMERICA, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGEMENT (#20) AND DEFENDANT FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC. (#26)

ROBERT B. COLLINGS, Magistrate Judge.

I RECOMMEND that the Motion for Entry of Default Judgement (#20) be DENIED as neither Chase nor Bank of America ("the banks") were properly served with process. The Court finds persuasive the analysis found in Section II. A. of the Opposition, Etc. (#25) and rules that service on a corporation by certified mail as was done by the plaintiffs is insufficient.

At the hearing on June 24th, counsel for the banks agreed to accept service of process on behalf of their clients if the plaintiffs send them the summons and a copy of the First Amended Complaint. The attorneys gave plaintiff Ioannis Asarides copies of their business cards, and Mr. Asarides agreed to serve the banks in this manner expeditiously.

I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the Court FIND AS MOOT Defendant FIA Card Services, N.A.'s Motion for Leave to File an Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Etc. (#26) as the banks will have the opportunity to file responsive pleadings after process is served upon them as per the procedure outlined in the preceding paragraph.

Review by the District Judge

The parties are hereby advised that any party who objects to these recommendations must file a specific written objection thereto with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party's receipt of this Report and Recommendation. The written objections must specifically identify the portion of the recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The parties are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has repeatedly indicated that failure to comply with Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., shall preclude further appellate review. See Keating v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Emiliano Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986); Scott v. Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir. 1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-379 (1st Cir., 1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.