Lucas v. Manley et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-01008-KDB-WCM
EBONY SHERISSE LUCAS,
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL MANLEY,
JAY LNU, AND
COLIN RUNDELL,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 3). The
Court has carefully considered this motion and the parties’ briefs and exhibits. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court will GRANT the motion and dismiss this action because the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants in the absence of valid service of process.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Prior to the exercise of personal jurisdiction, a Plaintiff must satisfy the procedural
requirement of service of a summons. Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987); see also
ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 620 (4th Cir. 1997) (“a federal court’s exercise
of jurisdiction over a person is closely linked to effective service of process.”). “Thus, before a
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be more than notice to the
defendant and a constitutionally sufficient relationship between the defendant and the forum. There
also must be a basis for the defendant’s amenability to service of summons.” Id.
Absent waiver of service of process or consent, the failure to obtain proper service of
process–even if the defendant gains actual notice–deprives the court of personal jurisdiction over
Case 3:25-cv-01008-KDB-WCM Document 9 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 4

2
a defendant. See, e.g., Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F.3d 304, 306 (4th Cir. 1998); FDIC v. Schaffer,
731 F.2d 1134, 1135–36 (4th Cir. 1984); Thomas & Howard Co. v. Trimark Catastrophe Servs.,
564 S.E.2d 569, 572 (2002) (“While a defective service of process may give the defending party
sufficient and actual notice of the proceedings, such actual notice does not give the court
jurisdiction over the party.”).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(4) challenges the sufficiency or form of the process
itself, while a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) challenges the sufficiency of the act of service
of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4), (b)(5). In essence, a Rule 12(b)(4) motion to dismiss
objects to a defect in the content of the documents served, while a Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss
objects to a defect in the act (or lack) of delivery. See, e.g., 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1353 (3d ed. 2004).
Once the sufficiency of process or service of process is challenged by a motion to dismiss,
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing process was sufficient and service of process was
effectuated in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Scott v. Md. State
Dep’t of Labor, 673 F. App’x 299, 304 (4th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted);
Elkins v. Broome, 213 F.R.D. 273, 276 (M.D.N.C. 2003).
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff has filed two affidavits of service. The first affidavit of service attests that “Jay
(Sales Manager)” and “Colin Rundell (General Manager)” were “served” a copy of the Summons
and Compliant by certified mail and sent to “AutoNation Charlotte, NC 28212.” (Doc. No. 3-1).
The USPS tracking information attached to the affidavit of service indicates that “Your item was
delivered to the front desk, reception area, or mail room at 10:00 am on November 20, 2025 in
CHARLOTTE, NC 28212.” (Id.). Plaintiff filed a second affidavit of service that attests “Michael
Case 3:25-cv-01008-KDB-WCM Document 9 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Manley (CEO/Director)” was “served” a copy of the Summons and Complaint by certified mail
and sent to “AutoNation LLC Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.” (Doc. No. 3-2). The USPS tracking
information attached to the affidavit of service indicates that “Your item was delivered to the front
desk, reception area, or mail room at 10:41 am on November 24, 2025 in FORT LAUDERDALE,
FL 33301.” (Id.).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rules 12(b)(5) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as 12(b)(6), which the Court need not address). Defendants argue
Plaintiff failed to serve them in compliance with Federal Rule 4. Rule 4 provides for service on an
individual in one of four ways, either by: (1) properly effecting service under state law; (2)
delivering a copy of the summons and complaint on the person individually; (3) leaving a copy of
each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides there; or (4) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment
or by law to receive service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Plaintiff’s mailing of a package to the
Defendants’ places of employment and delivery to the “front desk, reception area, or mail room”
as described above does not constitute valid service under either state or federal law. Therefore,
the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
IV. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED and this matter
dismissed without prejudice; and
Case 3:25-cv-01008-KDB-WCM Document 9 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 4

4
2. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: March 12, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01008-KDB-WCM Document 9 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 4