Embedded Files
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND
MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
The Plaintiff, We Got Room, LLC, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Motion for Alternative Service pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-121(b), and in support thereof states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover unpaid rent and damages related to the lease agreement for the property located at 5419 Moores Run Dr., Baltimore, MD 21206. Despite extensive and diligent efforts, Plaintiff has been unable to effectuate personal service of process on the Defendant as required by Maryland Rule 2-121(a). This motion documents the exhaustive steps taken to locate and serve the Defendant and seeks approval for alternative service methods reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the Defendant.
II. BACKGROUND
The Defendant’s last known address, based on skip-trace reports, public records, and Plaintiff’s investigation, is 5419 Moores Run Dr., Baltimore, MD 21206. Plaintiff made the following service attempts:
September 2024 Attempts: A process server attempted service multiple times (on September 3, 4, and 5, 2024) at 5419 Moores Run Dr. The process server rang the doorbell several times and checked the mailbox during each attempt. The mailbox bore the name “Kerney” instead of the Defendant’s, and no one answered. The process server concluded that the Defendant did not reside at this address.
December 2024 to January 2025 Attempts: Additional service attempts were made on December 13, December 23, December 30, January 3, and January 8 at 5419 Moores Run Dr. and 300 E Lombard St., Baltimore. The process server reported the following findings:
5419 Moores Run Dr.: On multiple visits, there was no response at the door, no indication of the Defendant’s presence, and neighbors confirmed they were unfamiliar with him. Each attempt yielded the same result.
300 E Lombard St.: This address was identified as a previous business location for the Defendant. Upon visiting, the process server discovered that the Defendant had not maintained an office at this location for over a year, rendering the address invalid for service. This is currently his business address on all social media platforms.
Despite diligent efforts to locate and serve the Defendant at these addresses, no progress was made in effectuating service, further supporting the conclusion that alternative methods of service are necessary.
III. ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO LOCATE DEFENDANT
Plaintiff has undertaken the following additional measures:
Skip-Tracing and Public Records Searches: Plaintiff utilized advanced skip-tracing tools to consolidate address histories, phone numbers, and email addresses associated with the Defendant. This investigation confirmed no additional viable addresses beyond those already attempted. It highlighted the Defendant’s association with 5419 Moores Run Dr. and 300 E Lombard St., which were thoroughly pursued without success.
Digital Communication: Plaintiff contacted the Defendant through known email addresses, including gomacfit@gmail.com. This email address is prominently displayed on the Defendant’s highly active social media account (@macfitperformance), which features consistent engagement with followers, including 3-6 posts per week, demonstrating significant online presence. The email is referenced as the official contact for the Defendant’s fitness business on multiple occasions. Emails sent to this address did not bounce back, suggesting it is still active; however, the Defendant failed to respond. Plaintiff also sent a direct message via Instagram notifying the Defendant of this action and requesting a response. The message was read by the Defendant, as evidenced by the platform’s tracking feature, yet no reply was received. This behavior further indicates awareness of the case but an intentional avoidance of formal service. Copies of the email and Instagram communication are attached as exhibits.
Certified Mail: Plaintiff sent certified mail containing the summons and complaint to the Defendant’s last known address at 5419 Moores Run Dr. The mail was returned as “unclaimed,” which further supports the assertion that the Defendant is evading receipt of legal documents.
Phone Calls: Plaintiff attempted to contact the Defendant through phone numbers associated with him, including (410) 670-6726, as identified in public records. All calls were either unanswered, directed to voicemail, or reached disconnected lines, confirming that this method of communication is not viable.
Social Media Investigation: The Defendant’s social media accounts are actively used to promote his fitness business, including advertising services, events, and client testimonials. Plaintiff attempted to confirm the Defendant’s whereabouts by attending public events promoted through these accounts, but the Defendant could not be located. Furthermore, Plaintiff sent a direct message through Instagram, which was marked as read by the Defendant but went unanswered, reinforcing the conclusion that the Defendant is avoiding formal notice of this case. Screenshots of the social media message and activity are attached as Exhibit B.
Event Observations: Plaintiff monitored the Defendant’s activities through public promotions for fitness-related events and business operations. Despite attending these events, Plaintiff’s representatives were unable to locate the Defendant to effectuate service. The active engagement displayed in these promotions underscores the Defendant’s presence in the community and his efforts to maintain an online and physical presence for business purposes, yet he remains evasive with respect to this litigation.
These exhaustive measures demonstrate that traditional service methods have been impracticable, warranting approval for alternative service methods.
IV. SERVICE MEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT (SCRA) COMPLIANCE
Plaintiff conducted an SCRA search via the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center. The attached certificate confirms that the Defendant is not on active military duty, ensuring compliance with federal protections.
V. JUSTIFICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Despite exhaustive efforts, the Defendant has evaded traditional service methods. Plaintiff has made at least seven documented service attempts across multiple locations and employed various investigative tools to locate the Defendant. These efforts demonstrate that further attempts at traditional service are unlikely to succeed.
VI. PROPOSED METHODS OF ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-121(b), Plaintiff respectfully requests authorization for the following alternative service methods:
Posting: Posting the summons and complaint on the front door of the Defendant’s last known address at 5419 Moores Run Dr., Baltimore, MD 21206.
Certified Mail: Mailing the summons and complaint via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the same address.
Email: Sending the summons and complaint to the Defendant’s known email address, gomacfit@gmail.com, which has been verified through public records.
VII. LEGAL BASIS
Maryland Rule 2-121(b) permits alternative service when traditional service is impracticable, provided the alternative methods are reasonably calculated to provide notice to the defendant. The proposed methods of posting, certified mail, and email meet these criteria and are reasonably likely to reach the Defendant.
VIII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Motion for Alternative Service and permit service of process on Defendant through the proposed methods.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:
Granting this Motion for Alternative Service.
Authorizing service by: a. Posting the summons and complaint at 5419 Moores Run Dr., Baltimore, MD 21206. b. Sending the summons and complaint via certified mail. c. Emailing the summons and complaint to gomacfit@gmail.com.
Granting any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: January 21, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Khan
Diana G. Khan, Esquire
AIS No.: 1606210143
diana@dklawmd.com
240-266-0291
DK Law Group LLC
10451 Mill Run Cir #755,
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MD RULE 20-201(h) CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Md. Rule 20-201(h), I hereby certify that this filing does not contain any restricted information.
Diana G. Khan, Esquire AIS No.: 1606210143
diana@dklawmd.com
240-266-0291
DK Law Group LLC
10451 Mill Run Cir #755, Owings Mills, MD 21117
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on January 21, 2025 I caused a copy of the foregoing document, together with any exhibits and/or attachments thereto, to be served on the following parties via electronic service or first-class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Derrick C. McPhearson
5419 Moores Run Dr., #755
Baltimore, MD 21206
Diana G. Khan, Esquire
AIS No.: 1606210143
diana@dklawmd.com
(240) 266-0291
DK Law Group LLC
10451 Mill Run Cir #755, Owings Mills, MD 21117
Diana G. Khan, Esquire
AIS No.: 1606210143
diana@dklawmd.com
240-266-0291
DK Law Group LLC
10451 Mill Run Cir #755, Owings Mills, MD 21117
Page updated
Report abuse