Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
2,573 characters extracted
—
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. RSC-CV-3342
)
)
)
)
)
)
HIGHZPEEDTRAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
EPSILONACE, R_ISIMM,
and GENEBASCETTI
Defendants.
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Defendant R_isimm (the “Defendant”), by his undersigned attorney, and
hereby moves this Honorable Court for an order quashing service of summons and complaint. For
grounds, the Defendant states the following:
THE SERVICE IS INVALID
1. Plaintiff HighZpeedTrain purports that the clerk of this Court issued the Original
Summons on July 27, 2024, requiring Defendant to file an appearance in the above-captioned case
and answer or otherwise provide a defense against the Complaint.
2. Common knowledge dictates that all such summonses must be served alongside a
complaint upon the relevant defendant. Collectively, these two documents are colloquially referred to
as “process.”
3. In this great state, specifically, the service of process must be done in a programmatic
way. See Rid. R. Civ. P. 4. Minimal latitude is permitted to ensure compliance with due process
requirements.
4. The service of process this Court believes to have been effectuated upon the
Defendant was, in fact, invalid. Specifically, while “service of all process shall be made by a sheriff,
deputy sheriff, any other person duly authorized by law,” it was Plaintiff HighZpeedTrain’s own
attorney who claims to have served the summons and complaint on the Defendant. Rid. R. Civ. P.
4(c). Patently, this attorney does not, nor even claims to, possess the authority to effectuate service of
process as required by the above-cited rule of procedure.
5. No jurisdiction in these United States allows a plaintiff’s attorney to serve process
upon a defendant. The reasons for this are self-evident. Ridgeway, as evidenced by its rules of civil
procedure, is no different.
7. Considering definitionally prohibited service as valid would set a dangerous
precedent, jeopardizing the procedural safeguards designed to ensure that defendants receive proper
notice of the actions against them and are given a fair opportunity to respond.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves for a finding that the service of the Original Summons
and the Complaint on him was invalid. Consequently, the Defendant moves for an order quashing it.
July 27, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Notableants
Attorney for Defendant R_isimm
E: [email protected]
P: +1 (120) JUS-TICE
101 Justice Ave.
Lumina Springs, RW 00000
United States of America
2
Document record
File size
82.1 KB
Uploaded
Jul 27, 2024 12:00 PM
Filed
Jul 27, 2024 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
highzpeedtrain
Notes
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. #02-CAB.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/iosxibNt)
