7 minute read
DBA 100% CLUB Firm Members Join the Club in 2022
The 100% Club is a special category of membership that demonstrates a commitment to the legal profession and our community.
100% Club Firms are those in which all attorney’s are DBA members. All firms and legal organizations with two or more attorneys are invited to join the Club!
Advertisement
Thank You to the 2021-2022 law firm & organization club members!
Over 50!
WilmerHale
40-50 Members
Montgomery County Public Defender's Office
30-39 Members
Coolidge Wall Co., LPA
20-29 Members
Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., LPA Sebaly Shillito + Dyer
10-19 Members
Auman Mahan & Furry, LPA Bieser Greer & Landis, LLP Faruki+ PLL Freund, Freeze & Arnold A Legal Professional Association Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal Rogers & Greenberg, LLP Second District Court of Appeals
5-9 Members
Buckley King LPA Dayton Municipal Court Foos & Lentz LLP Green & Green Lawyers Kirkland & Sommers Co., LPA Legal Aid of Western Ohio Subashi Wildermuth & Justice Surdyk Dowd & Turner Co., LPA Young & Alexander Co., LPA
2-4 Members
Baldwin Valley Law, LLC Boucher & Kolber Brannon & Associates Bruns Connell Vollmar & Armstrong, LLC Cowan & Hilgeman Craig T. Matthews & Associates, LPA Crown Equipment Corp. David A. Chicarelli Co., LPA Dayton Power & Light Company Douple, Beyoglides, Claypool & Lipowicz Dysinger & Patry, LLC Elliott, Faulkner & Webber Esler & VanderSchaaff Co., LPA Falke & Dunphy, LLC Fox & Associates Gammell Ross & Hoshor, LLC Gounaris Abboud, LPA Gregory M. Gantt Co., LPA Gudorf Law Group, LLC Hedrick & Jordan Co., LPA Hochwalt & Schiff, LLC Hollingsworth & Washington Houck Menninger Law, LLC Jablinski Roberts & Gall, LPA Jackson Lewis, P.C. Jacox Meckstroth & Jenkins Kaman & Cusimano, LLC Kettering Municipal Court Larson, Lyons & Al-Hamdani, LLC Law Office of Gump Deal & Hirth LCNB National Bank Lennen Law LLC Leppla Associates, Ltd. Lovett & House Co., LPA. Martin Folino, LPA Mesaros Law Office Miamisburg Municipal Court Myers & Frayne Co., LPA Nolan Sprowl & Smith O'Diam & Estess Law Group, Inc. Roberson Law Robert L. Deddens Law Offices Roderer Law Office, LLC Sherrets Law Offices, LLC Smith Meier & Webb, LPA Stachler & Harmon Attorneys at Law Stamps and Stamps Stephen D. Miles Thorson Switala Mondock & Snead, LLP Tracy & Tracy Co., LPA Treherne Law Office
From the Judge's Desk
You Just Got Served! (...or did you?)
By The Honorable E. Gerald Parker Jr. Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Gerald.Parker@montcourt.oh.gov
Ifully intended to write this Bar Brief for the new year without even mentioning COVID-19. My apologies, I failed. But this topic is both eye-opening and eye-rolling at the same time. I mean, did anyone expect this pandemic to trickle into the arena of process serving? Well, it has, so here we go. Since approximately March of 2020, the beginning of the Coronavirus pandemic, the United States Postal Service (USPS) and potentially other Commercial Carrier Services have not been obtaining signatures for Certified Mail delivery or signed receipts and instead marking the return receipt green card or signed receipt with “Covid” or “Covid-19.” In fact, the USPS issued “Covid-19 Continuity of Operations Update” on March 20, 2020 implemented “temporary modifications to mail handling procedures for mail that requires customer signatures.”1 Essentially, the Operations Update instructs letter carriers from ringing doorbells, knocking on customer’s door, maintain safe distances, and if no response, follow the normal Notice Left process. Id. The latter has and will continue to throw a wrench into how we as practitioners effectuate Due Process.
We all are aware that Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a), provides for Service by United States certified or express mail evidenced by return receipt signed by any person. However, Courts, including ours, are grappling with how to address return receipts not signed by any person, but marked “Covid” or “Covid-19” by the letter carriers. The Southern District of Ohio issued General Order No. 20-39 which Ordered that due to the USPS temporary modifications, and consistent with these modifications, “USPS mail carriers may not always obtain a signature of the certified mail recipient, but instead may make certain notations reflecting confirmation of delivery.”2 Service notations such as “COVID,” “COVID-19” or other similar notations consistent with the USPS’ modifications to its mail delivery procedures “…shall be deemed perfected unless otherwise challenged.” Id.
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, decreed that the "delivery shall be treated as successful" where the mail carrier obtained a first initial and last name instead of a signature as confirmation of delivery.3 If you look closely, this Order seemingly echoes the USPS Operations Update and acknowledges the Ohio Supreme Court’s March 27, 2020, Administrative Action allowing for waiver of in-person service and appearance or service by the use of technology.
SOURCES:
1COVID-19 Continuity of Operations Update, Customer Signature Service, COVID-19 Response and Prevention, https://postalpro.usps.com/node/7833 (March 20, 2020). 2United States District Court Southern District of Ohio, General Order No.20-39 (December 29, 2020). 3In the Court of Common Pleas, General Division, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, In Re: Order Regarding Service and Accepted USPS Certified Mail Process Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, Journal Entry, (May 26, 2020).
Knox County Court of Common Pleas ordered that the "Covid-19" signature "shall be deemed to be perfected service" only if the party served later makes an appearance in the case or other evidence shows the party indeed resides at the location.4 This Order appears to place an onus on the mail recipient in order for them to not have a default judgment eventually filed against them.
Clear as mud, right?
What is consistent in each of the previously mentioned Orders is that these Courts are attempting to decree what IS deemed to be perfected and successful service. Let’s not forget they are trying to give guidance in order to move cases forward timely and effectuate Due Process, all while balancing the safety and well-being of the thousands of letter carriers who are putting their health at risk on a daily basis by making constant contact with unknown recipients.
With that being said, even the tiniest bit of consistency these courts provided was overturned faster than a decision by Judge Krumholtz (going to miss you, friend). On September 29, 2021, the First District Court of Appeals found that allowing the mail carrier to unilaterally substitute itself as an agent of the intended recipient frustrates the very purpose of Civ.R. 4.1's accepted methods of service. Cuc Properties VI, LLC v. Smartlink Ventures, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210003, 2021Ohio-3428, ¶ 11. Cuc Properties VI, LLC, argued that the Ohio Supreme Court took administrative action validating such service. “Any requirement in a rule of the Court that a party appear in person or requiring in-person service may be waived by the Court, local court, hearing panel, board, or commission, as applicable."5 Based on that order from the Ohio Supreme Court, some courts in the state promulgated a variety of rules to accommodate alternative certified mail signatures. Cuc Properties VI, LLC, ¶ 13.
Nonetheless, the First Appellate District did not see it that way. The reason the signature provision exists is to substantiate that someone actually received the summons and complaint— and the notations in this case fail to offer that assurance. Cuc Properties VI, LLC, ¶ 11. In that case, the judgement entry of the trial court granting Cuc’s motion for default judgement was reversed, and vacated.
In light of the Cuc Properties VI, LLC decision, plaintiffs’ attorneys may want to be more proactive and consider reissuing service when it is returned with a “Covid 19” notation as these matters are obviously ripe for a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Hopefully, soon we will be provided with some additional guidance moving forward from the higher courts. Until then, we shall add this to the list of uncertainties during these complex times.
SOURCES:
4In the Court of Common Pleas Knox County, Ohio, Richard D. Wetzel, Judge, In Re: COVID-19 VIRUS, Order for Service Under Civil Rule 4.1(A)(1) During the Covid-19 Public Health Crisis (September 4, 2020). 5In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by the Supreme Court & Use of Technology, 158 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2020-Ohio-1166, 141 N.E.3d 974.
