IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SNIPERALLSTAR1,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRINZBAKYL,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-3297
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant prinzbakyl, by and through his counsel Mr. Notableants, submits a motion for
reconsideration on the rejected motion to quash service. Notably, this is being treated as a motion
to dismiss as it effectively asks the court to declare that there is insufficient service of process
and that would therefore warrant the dismissal of the matter. The original motion was made
before Magistrate bommes, and denied. Upon a motion for reconsideration, Magistrate bommes
referred that question up to me to issue a ruling, as to avoid potential error.
The basis of the dispute here arises under the rules of civil procedure, which outlines that
“service of all process shall be made by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, any other person duly
authorized by law; or a person specifically appointed for that purpose.” Rid. R. Civ. P. 4(c). The
court rejects the notion that service cannot be completed by the plaintiff or by their counsel.
Namely, the rules specifically outline that “a person specifically appointed for [the purpose of
serving summons]” may serve the summons (and complaint, together). Rid. R. Civ. P. 4(c). The
court very clearly appointed and empowered the plaintiff’s counsel in this matter to serve the
papers, thus making him a qualified person.
Defendant goes on to argue that service must be made by some uninvolved person, if not
a sheriff or deputy; that the plaintiff cannot make service and neither can their counsel. While
there are persuasive authorities from states like Illinois, as the defendant’s counselor brought to
the court’s attention, there are other persuasive authorities—like the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure—which charge the responsibility of service to the plaintiff directly. In any case,
service here is made by the plaintiff’s counsel, not by the plaintiff themselves, and only the
capacity of the plaintiff’s counsel to serve these papers will be assessed. Notably, “a person
1
licensed under [the Regulation of Legal Professionals Act] is an officer of every court which they
are licensed to appear in.” 1 R. Stat. § 1507. As an officer of the court, an attorney’s primary
responsibility is of faith and loyalty to this court, and accordingly, to conduct such duties as may
be bestowed upon them by the court.
Finally the court considers the common law practices accepted by the Superior Court,
time and time again, throughout its history. As far back at July 2022, which happens to be quite
near to the inception of this court, it has been held that a judge can appoint a person who is a
party to the proceedings to serve the summons. See S_hadowRBLX v. Toronto_Laws,
RSC-CV-2969 (2024); see also Hitherwguys v. TNT_EXPLODES, RSC-CV-2190 (2024); see
also thr33six8 v. daviddevvil2, RSC-CV-2091 (2023); see also ToastedPueri v. ISpilledMyTacos,
RSC-CV-859 (2023); see also Lukestout1 v. Proceed101, RSC-CV-508 (2022); see also
Zlatoustovo v. Mxrlsx, RSC-CV-501 (2022). The court is in no hurry to overturn the
long-standing accepted practice done by numerous generations of attorneys and judges in
tandem.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the motion to reconsider is DENIED. Magistrate
bommes’ original ruling is ratified and approved, supplemented by this opinion and order. The
court rejects the request to file a certified question before the Supreme Court.
Done: July 28, 2024 SO ORDERED:
At Palmer, Ridgeway
_______________________________
Hon. notsfeelings
Superior Court Judge
Copies to: Plaintiff
Defendant
Counselors
Magistrate bommes
2
