Betts v. Tsys Global Payments

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DIANNE BETTS, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 3:25-cv-00609
) 	Judge Crenshaw/Frensley, Jr.
TSYS GLOBAL PAYMENTS, 	)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This fee-paid, pro se employment action is before the court on defendant Total System
Services, LLC’s, (“TSYS” or “Defendant”) motion to dismiss for insufficient process and
insufficient service of process pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and (5), or
alternatively, to transfer for improper venue. 	Docket No. 8. The motion is fully briefed and ready
for disposition. 	The undersigned recommends that the Defendant’s motion be GRANTED and
the Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was formerly employed by TSYS, a financial technology and payment processing
company, in Columbus, Georgia. TSYS terminated Plaintiff’s employment on September 22,
2022, for excessive absenteeism. Plaintiff filed her pro se form complaint for employment
discrimination against TSYS on June 3, 2025, alleging she was wrongfully terminated based on
her disability, sleep apnea. Docket No. 1, p. 4.
The complaint and attached statement are difficult to decipher in many places. Plaintiff
checked the boxes on her form for the following claims and theories of discriminatory conduct:
termination of employment, failure to accommodate her disability, retaliation, and unequal terms
and conditions of employment. Id. at p. 4. She asserts claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Case 3:25-cv-00609 Document 14 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 12203 Retaliation Clause, and state law. Id. at p. 3. She alleges she was terminated for allegedly
not having sufficient sick and vacation time to attend a medical appointment and for two “mishaps”
in September 2022. Docket No. 1-1, at p. 6. 	She alleges TSYS refused to accommodate her
disability and failed to allow her to work from home. Id. She was subjected to fraudulent conduct
by her supervisor to retaliate against her for refusing to 	sign a “false write up.” 	Id. 	She was
subjected to a forced six-day vacation during which she was recorded as a “no-show” for those
days. Id. She alleges Defendant’s actions, including theft, fraudulent documentation, retaliation,
and discriminatory conduct caused her severe emotional distress, financial hardship and health
problems. Id. She seeks reinstatement and damages. Id. at p. 7
The instant motion to dismiss followed. Docket No. 8. Defendant argues the court lacks
jurisdiction because service of process was improper. Docket No. 8, p. 4. In support of its motion,
Defendant submitted the sworn declaration of Elizabeth Cook, TSYS Vice President and Senior
Associate General Counsel, as well copies of a internet business search showing TSYS’s
Registered Agent notices. Docket Nos. 8-1, 8-2. Defendant also cites Plaintiff’s proof of service
filed with the court on July 10, 2025. Docket No. 7.
On August 15, 2025, after Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion and after the time had
passed to do so, the undersigned issued a show cause order directing Plaintiff to show cause why
her claims should not be dismissed. 	Docket No. 10. 	Plaintiff responded, opposing the motion.
Docket No. 11. In her response, Plaintiff reiterates the allegations in her complaint. She does not
respond to TSY”s argument that she failed to effect proper service other than noting that the EEOC
sent Cook a copy of her notice of right-to-sue. Docket No. 11, p. 5. She attached a copy of her
EEOC notice which indicated that a copy of the notice was being sent to Cook. Id at pp. 6-7.
Case 3:25-cv-00609 Document 14 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Defendant replied, asserting Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she properly served TSYS.
Docket No. 12, p. 1. Defendant notes Plaintiff’s response failed to address the issue of service or
offer any evidence of proof of service. Id. at p. 2. It argues Plaintiff’s EEOC notice is irrelevant
with respect to whether Cook can accept service of a lawsuit. Id.
Plaintiff filed a sur-reply--without seeking leave of court--asserting TSYS’s argument that
Cook was not authorized to receive service is “immaterial.” Docket No. 13, p. 3. She argues it is
undisputed that Cook received the summons and complaint and filed a timely response, thus
satisfying “constitutional due process.” Id. She states: “TSYS received the lawsuit, acknowledged
it, and responded. Whether Ms. Cook was the ‘correct’ recipient is legally irrelevant.” Id.
The undersigned disagrees.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
The requirement of proper service of process “is not some mindless technicality.”
Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151, 1156 (6th Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). If a
defendant is not properly served, a federal court lacks jurisdiction over that defendant. King v.
Taylor, 694 F.3d 650, 655 (6th Cir. 2012). In the absence of personal jurisdiction, a federal court
is powerless to proceed to an adjudication. Id.
The plaintiff bears the burden of executing due diligence in perfecting service of process
and showing that proper service was made. Spencer v. Caracal Int’l, LLC, 516 F.Supp.3d 755,
758 (M.D. Tenn. 2021). 	Courts may look to record evidence and uncontroverted affidavits in
determining whether plaintiffs have met this burden. Id. Courts generally treat Rule 12(b)(4) and
(5) as more or less interchangeable. 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 12.33[1] (3d. ed. 2003). The
burden of proof lies with the party raising a challenge to the sufficiency of service of process. Id.
Moreover, a defendant's actual knowledge of a lawsuit is no substitute for proper service of
Case 3:25-cv-00609 Document 14 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

4
process. LSJ Investment Co., Inc. v. O.L.D., Inc., 167 F.3d 320, 322 (6th Cir. 1999); Friedman v.
Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151, 1155–56 (6th Cir. 1991).
TSYS is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware,
with its principal place of business in Columbus, Georgia. Docket No. 8-1, p. 2. Service on TSYS,
as an “unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a common name,” is accomplished
pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1), which states that service on such entities may be performed either:
(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or
(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a
managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law
to receive service of process and--if the agent is one authorized by statute and the
statute so requires--by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant. . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). The “manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1)” means that service in accordance
with the state law is also permissible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) (service may be made by
“following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction
in the state where the district court is located or where service is made”).
Tennessee law allows for service by registered return receipt or certified return receipt
mail. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.04 (10). Effecting service by mail requires more than merely dropping
the summons and complaint in the mailbox. Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Dewrell Sacks, LLP, No.
3:08–1083, 2009 WL 5217021 at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 30, 2009). Unless the summons and
complaint are actually received and signed for by the defendant or his authorized agent, service of
process by mail delivery is not effective. Id. (citing Massey v. Hess, No. 1:05-CV-249, 2006 WL
2370205, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 14, 2006).
Here, Plaintiff’s proof of service shows that she attempted to serve TSYS with the
summons and complaint via United States Postal Service (“USPS”) certified mail addressed to
Elizabeth Cook, at TSYS’s headquarters in Columbus, Georgia. Docket No. 7; Docket No. 8-1,
Case 3:25-cv-00609 Document 14 Filed 10/30/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

5
p. 3. 	Cook, however, is not an agent of TSYS authorized to receive service on its behalf. 	Id.
Moreover, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that Cook is an officer or a managing or general
agent of TSYS, or that she is authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
Rather, TSYS has retained CT Corporation System as its registered agent in both Tennessee and
Georgia. Docket No. 8-2, pp. 2-3. Moreover, even if Cook were an agent of TSYS authorized to
accept service, the USPS certified mail was not in fact delivered to Cook; the signed receipt was
signed and received by a different individual. Docket No. 7; Docket No. 8-1, p. 3.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) allows for service “following state law for serving a summons … in
the state where the district court is located or where service is made,” i.e., Tennessee. Tennessee
Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04 provides that a domestic corporation may be served “by delivering a
copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer or managing agent thereof, or ... to any
other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the corporation.”
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.04(4). Tennessee law also authorizes service of process by certified mail. Tenn.
R. Civ. P. 4.04(10). Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.03(2) provides that service by certified
mail is complete only if the return receipt is signed by the defendant, or by a person designated by
Rule 4.04 or by statute.
Also, the proof of service filed by Plaintiff includes a name and signature that are illegible.
Docket No. 7, p. 3. 	While it appears that the mail was signed and received by an individual in
TSYS’s mail room, it was not signed by an officer or managing agent of TSYS who was authorized
to accept service, nor is it dated. Id at p. 3. Docket No. 8-1, p. 3. Plaintiff has not presented any
evidence to the contrary.
For defendants outside of Tennessee, Tennessee law also permits service to be done “in
any manner prescribed by the law of the state in which service is effected for an action in any of
Case 3:25-cv-00609 Document 14 Filed 10/30/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

6
the courts of general jurisdiction in that state.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.05. 	Service may also be
accomplished by following the state law for service of process in the state where the court is
located or service is made, here, Georgia. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
Georgia allows service upon a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and
complaint to the president or other officer of such corporation, a managing agent thereof, or a
registered agent thereof. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(e)(1). “[T]he mailing of a copy of the summons and
complaint along with a request for acknowledgment of service to Defendant’s registered agent is
not sufficient under Georgia law to perfect service. The service upon a registered agent has to be
personal.” Ritts v. Dealers All. Credit Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1475, 1478 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (citation
omitted). 	Therefore, Plaintiff’s method of service by certified mail is also insufficient under
Georgia law.
The court concludes the record shows TSYS has not been properly served with process.
Because Plaintiff cannot establish that she properly served TSYS, this Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over TSYS, requiring dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Considering this
holding, the Court need not address ISYS’s other arguments for dismissal.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court recommends defendant TSYS’s motion to dismiss (Docket
No. 8) be GRANTED, and the complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days
from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have fourteen
(14) days from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any response to said
objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report
and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas
Case 3:25-cv-00609 Document 14 Filed 10/30/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

7
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00609 Document 14 Filed 10/30/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>